Loading High Court cases…
1,346 orders · Page 17 of 27
The High Court noted the submission made by the assessee's counsel that the assessee had availed the benefit of the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. Consequently, the assessee's counsel sought to withdraw the appeal. The court placed this submission on record. The appeal was disposed of with liberty granted to the assessee to seek revival of the appeal in case of occasion arising. No decision was made on the substantial questions of law that were to be formulated.
The High Court held that the assessee's activities of producing customized electronic data fall within the scope of 'Engineering and Design' and qualify for deduction under Section 10B. The Tribunal should have followed coordinate bench decisions or referred the matter to a larger bench.
The High Court held that the Tribunal's decision was just and proper, following a previous Division Bench judgment. Therefore, the substantial question of law was answered in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the issue was decided by the Supreme Court in a similar case. Following the Supreme Court's decision, the substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the assessee's activities of producing customized electronic data fall within the scope of 'Engineering and Design' and qualify for deduction under Section 10B. The Tribunal should have followed coordinate bench decisions or referred the matter to a larger bench.
The High Court accepted the memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellant praying for the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the assessee's activities of producing customized electronic data fall within the scope of 'Engineering and Design' and qualify for deduction under Section 10B. The Tribunal should have followed coordinate bench decisions or referred the matter to a larger bench.
The High Court directed the respondent tax authority to decide on the petitioner's manual application for lower TDS deduction within one week. All contentions of the petitioner were kept open, and the respondents were permitted to grant a personal hearing.
The High Court held that the assessee's activities of producing customized electronic data fall within the scope of 'Engineering and Design' and qualify for deduction under Section 10B. The Tribunal should have followed coordinate bench decisions or referred the matter to a larger bench.
The High Court held that the assessee's activities of producing customized electronic data fall within the scope of 'Engineering and Design' and qualify for deduction under Section 10B. The Tribunal should have followed coordinate bench decisions or referred the matter to a larger bench.
The High Court held that the assessee's activities of producing customized electronic data fall within the scope of 'Engineering and Design' and qualify for deduction under Section 10B. The Tribunal should have followed coordinate bench decisions or referred the matter to a larger bench.
The High Court accepted the memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellants, praying for the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court granted liberty to the appellants to file a fresh appeal in the future if the need arises. Importantly, the court explicitly stated that the questions of law framed in the present appeal were left open, meaning they were not decided on merits. No specific findings were made on the substantive issues that might have been raised in the original appeal before the Tribunal.
The High Court of Karnataka accepted the memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) praying for the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court granted liberty to the appellants to file a fresh appeal in the future if the need arises. Crucially, the Court explicitly stated that the questions of law framed in the present appeal were left open, meaning they were not decided on their merits. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original dispute before the Tribunal.
The High Court held that the assessee's activities of producing customized electronic data fall within the scope of 'Engineering and Design' and qualify for deduction under Section 10B. The Tribunal should have followed coordinate bench decisions or referred the matter to a larger bench.
The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable because the monetary limit for such appeals was not met. The judgment explicitly states, 'As the monetary limit is below Rs.1 crore, the appeal is not maintainable.' Consequently, the appeal was disposed of on this preliminary ground. The High Court did not delve into the merits of the case or the substantial questions of law that the Revenue sought to formulate. The ratio decidendi is that appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act are subject to monetary limits, and failure to meet these limits renders the appeal non-maintainable. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not maintainable.
The High Court accepted the memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellant seeking withdrawal of the appeal. The reason for withdrawal was the appellant-Company's decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the original appeal before the Tribunal was made. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court, relying on a previous decision, quashed the orders of the lower authorities. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the claim under Section 80-IB(10) afresh.
The Tribunal correctly held that royalty income from agreements entered into before and after 1/6/2005 can be treated separately for applying Section 115A or DTAA provisions. The High Court affirmed this, stating that different rates apply based on the agreement dates.
The High Court accepted the memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The memo indicated that the appellant had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore prayed for the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law that were intended to be formulated, nor was there any discussion or finding on the ITAT's order dated February 8, 2019. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the appeal due to its withdrawal.
The Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee's capital and reserves exceeded its investments, creating a presumption that investments were made from non-interest bearing funds.
The Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee's capital and reserves exceeded its investments, creating a presumption that investments were made from non-interest bearing funds.
The High Court found that the direction for remand was incongruous with the substantial question of law being answered in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the Court decided to delete the paragraph containing the remand direction.
The High Court, following its judgment in connected appeals, answered the substantial questions of law against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal's deletion of disallowances under Section 14A was upheld.
The tribunal noted that the petitioner had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and had been issued a certificate. In light of this development, the tribunal permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition.
The High Court took the memo on record and, for the reasons stated therein, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if the occasion arose.
The High Court of Karnataka, while hearing the appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, noted that the assessee's counsel had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The Court took the memo on record and, for the reasons assigned therein, disposed of the appeal as withdrawn. The Court granted the assessee liberty to revive the appeal if occasion arose. No decision on the merits of the substantial questions of law was made, as the appeal was withdrawn by the assessee.
The High Court noted that the ITAT order itself stated there were no additions made by the Assessing Officer for the relevant assessment year. The assessee's counsel confirmed this fact, rendering nothing for adjudication.
The Tribunal correctly held that the draft assessment order was barred by limitation. The High Court found that the order in the writ petition did not contain any finding or direction that would extend the limitation period under Section 153(3)(ii).
The High Court noted that the CIT(Appeals) subsequently allowed the assessee's petition under Section 154, granting relief. Therefore, the appeal challenging the Tribunal's order was rendered academic.
The High Court found that the Tribunal failed to adjudicate one of the assessee's grounds independently. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on that specific ground.
The Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition as not pressed. Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to seek restoration if the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme does not materialize.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's decision to resolve the dispute under the Vivad-se-Vishwas scheme.
The High Court of Karnataka took on record the memo filed by the learned counsel for the assessee seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. For the reasons stated in the memo, the High Court disposed of the appeal. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to revive the appeal if the need arises. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law or the ITAT's order. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to revive.
The High Court took the memo on record and, for the reasons stated therein, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the occasion arises.
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive if necessary.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, following its decision in a related case. The specific grounds for the ITAT's decision regarding Section 80IB and overhead allocation were not detailed in this judgment.
The High Court took on record the submission regarding settlement under the Vivad-se-Vishwas scheme. The revenue sought permission to withdraw the appeal.
The High Court took on record the submission regarding settlement under the Vivad-se-Vishwas scheme. The Revenue sought permission to withdraw the appeal.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, following its judgment in a related case. The appellate authorities' decision regarding the method of accounting and entitlement to deduction was upheld.
The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, stating that the reasons were assigned in a related judgment. The Appellate Authorities' decision regarding the method of accounting and entitlement to deduction was upheld.
The High Court accepted the memo filed by the appellant and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The appellant was granted liberty to seek revival of the appeals if necessary.
The High Court held that the complainant failed to prove the signature on the cheque belonged to the accused and also failed to establish his financial capacity to lend the amount. Therefore, the conviction was not sustainable.
The High Court accepted the memo filed by the appellant. The Court noted that the appellant-Company had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeal with liberty to seek revival if the need arises. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the liberty as prayed for in the memo. Any pending interlocutory applications (IAs) were also disposed of.
The High Court accepted the memo filed by the appellant. The Court ordered the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn, granting the liberty to the appellant to seek revival of the appeal as prayed for in the memo. The Court also noted that pending interlocutory applications (IAs) would stand disposed of. The reasoning for the decision is based on the appellant's voluntary decision to opt for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, which led to the withdrawal of the appeal. The principle is that appeals can be withdrawn when parties opt for settlement schemes, with provisions for revival if required.
The High Court of Karnataka accepted the memo filed by the appellant. The Court noted that the appellant-Company had approached the Department under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to seek revival of the appeal if the need arises, as prayed for in the memo. Any pending interlocutory applications (IAs) were also disposed of. The judgment did not delve into the merits of the original appeal or the ITAT's order, as the appeal was withdrawn by the appellant.
The High Court accepted the memo filed by the appellant, M/s. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM), seeking withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the appellant had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court granted the appellant liberty to seek revival of the appeal if the need arises. Any pending interlocutory applications (IAs) were also disposed of.
The High Court accepted the memo filed by the appellant. The Court held that the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn, granting the appellant the liberty to seek revival of the appeal if the need arises. The reasoning was based on the appellant's decision to opt for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, as communicated to the Court and formalized through the filed memo. No decision on the merits of the original appeal was made. Pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.
The High Court accepted the memo filed by the appellant and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The appellant was granted liberty to seek revival of the appeal if needed.
The High Court accepted the memo filed by the appellant praying for withdrawal of the appeal. The court granted liberty to seek revival of the appeal if needed.
The High Court held that the insurance company cannot be fully exonerated due to the driver's lack of a valid license, applying the 'pay and recover' principle. The court also recomputed the compensation, finding the Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's income to be on the lower side.