Karnataka High Court Judgments — 2021

The High Court accepted the memo for withdrawal and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The connected appeal was also dismissed as withdrawn in light of the order in the first appeal.

The High Court accepted the memo for withdrawal and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The connected appeal was also dismissed as withdrawn in light of the order in the first appeal.

The High Court found that the investigation was not satisfactory and that the ends of justice would be met by directing a fresh investigation. The court ordered the formation of an SIT headed by a Deputy Commissioner of Police to investigate the FIRs.

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the petitioner's appeal within six months. This was made subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the demand within four weeks.

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the petitioner's appeal within six months. This direction is subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the demand within four weeks.

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the petitioner's appeal within six months. This was made subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the demand within four weeks.

The High Court did not decide the appeal on its merits. The learned counsel for the respondent informed the court that the assessee had filed an appropriate application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the respondent's counsel prayed for the withdrawal of the appeal. The Court allowed this prayer and disposed of the appeal as withdrawn. The Court granted liberty to the parties to file a fresh appeal in case the need arises in the future. No decision was made on the substantial questions of law or the merits of the case.

The High Court accepted the assessee's submission that the appeal falls below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The High Court noted that the dispute was settled under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn.

The High Court acknowledged the right to speedy justice as a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. It directed the trial court to hear and dispose of the applications preferably within two months.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the monetary limit prescribed by a circular issued by the Government of India.

The High Court allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if necessary.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could apply Section 115A or the DTAA separately for different sources of income covered by different agreements, as the provisions of the Act and the treaty, whichever is more beneficial, would apply. This decision was based on the mutually exclusive nature of sub-clauses within Section 115A.

The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal, disposing of the case. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek revival of the appeal if necessary.

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the assessee's counsel had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal on the ground that the matter had been amicably settled under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. The memo was placed on record. For the reasons assigned in the memo, the appeal was disposed of. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to seek revival of the appeal in case of occasion arising. The specific findings of the ITAT order dated May 16, 2012, were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.

The High Court affirmed the Single Judge's order and the Land Tribunal's decision, holding that the Waqf Board could not claim title merely by registering the property. The contesting respondents successfully established their occupancy rights based on title deeds and cultivation records.

The High Court affirmed the Single Judge's order and the Land Tribunal's decision, holding that the Waqf Board could not claim title merely by registering the property. The contesting respondents successfully established their occupancy rights based on title deeds and cultivation records.

The Tribunal dismissed the Review Petition because the Revenue could not furnish the necessary documents to prove their case fell under the exception. Liberty was again granted to the Revenue to seek revival of the order upon obtaining the required documents.

The High Court held that the Tribunal's decision regarding the applicability of Section 80JJ(AA) was proper, and that Sections 194-C and 194-I were not applicable to the lease financing of motor vehicles, thus no disallowance could be made for non-deduction of TDS.

The assessee's counsel filed a memo seeking to withdraw the appeal. The Court accepted the memo and disposed of the appeal with liberty to seek revival if necessary.

The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to seek revival if the occasion arises.

The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to seek revival of the appeal if necessary.

The tribunal held that the law does not provide for an extension of the six-month period for transporting excavated minerals beyond the lease expiry. Any loss due to government delays can be compensated through a civil suit.

The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The Court took the memo on record and, for the reasons assigned therein, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if the occasion arose. No decision was made on the substantial questions of law or the merits of the assessment order, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.

The High Court considered the memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellant seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The Court took the memo on record and, for the reasons assigned therein, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court granted liberty to the assessee to revive the appeal if occasion so arises. No decision was made on the merits of the case.

The High Court modified the maintenance amount, bifurcating it based on the date of amendment of the wife's prayer. The court upheld the Family Court's decision regarding rent and litigation expenses.

The High Court noted that the matter had been settled by the assessee under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of.

The High Court took on record the memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellant seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. For the reasons stated in the memo, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court granted liberty to the assessee to revive the appeal if the occasion arises. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law that were intended to be formulated, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.

The High Court held that the Tribunal's orders were passed without providing complete material to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remanded for fresh hearing.

The High Court held that the Tribunal's orders were passed without providing complete material to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remanded for fresh hearing.

The High Court held that the Tribunal's orders were passed without providing complete material to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remanded for fresh hearing.

The High Court held that the Tribunal's orders were passed without providing complete material to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remanded for fresh hearing.

The High Court held that the Tribunal's orders were passed without providing complete material to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remanded for fresh hearing.

The High Court held that the Tribunal's orders were passed without providing complete material to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remanded for fresh hearing.

The High Court held that the Tribunal's orders were passed without providing complete material to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remanded for fresh hearing.

The High Court held that the Tribunal's orders were passed without providing complete material to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remanded for fresh hearing.

The High Court held that the Tribunal's orders were passed without providing complete material to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remanded for fresh hearing.

The High Court held that the Tribunal's orders were passed without providing complete material to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remanded for fresh hearing.

The High Court held that the Tribunal's orders were passed without providing complete material to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remanded for fresh hearing.

The High Court held that the Tribunal's orders were passed without providing complete material to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remanded for fresh hearing.

The High Court held that the Tribunal's orders were passed without providing complete material to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remanded for fresh hearing.

The High Court held that the Tribunal's orders were passed without providing complete material to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remanded for fresh hearing.

The High Court held that the Tribunal's orders were passed without providing complete material to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remanded for fresh hearing.

The High Court held that the issue was settled by the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. The substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee.

The High Court found no merit in the appellant's application, noting that a similar stay application had already been disposed of. The court also observed that the current application sought to indirectly stay tax liability arising from regular assessment orders, which were not the subject of the original appeal.

The High Court held that the Tribunal's orders were passed without providing complete material to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matters were remanded for fresh hearing.

The High Court allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court granted liberty to the appellant to file a fresh appeal in the future if the need arises. No decision was made on the merits of the case.

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru noted that the learned counsel for the appellant (M/s Sacred Heart Souharda Credit Co-Operative Ltd.) had filed a memo praying for the withdrawal of the appeal. The Court accepted the memo and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case, and no substantial question of law was decided or formulated. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the assessee had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. For the reasons assigned in the memo, the High Court disposed of the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to seek revival of the appeal if the occasion arises. No decision was made on the substantial questions of law or the merits of the ITAT's order, as the appeal was withdrawn by the assessee.

The High Court of Karnataka did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. Instead, the learned counsel for the assessee filed a memo seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the appeal. For the reasons assigned in the memo, the appeal was disposed of. The Court granted liberty to the assessee to seek revival of the appeal in case of occasion so arises. Therefore, no finding was rendered on the merits of the case, and no specific issue was expressly left undecided as the appeal itself was withdrawn.