Loading High Court cases…
1,346 orders · Page 18 of 27
The High Court accepted the memo filed by the appellant for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek revival if needed.
The High Court accepted the memo filed by the appellant and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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 necessary.
The High Court accepted the memo filed by BESCOM seeking withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek revival if necessary.
The High Court accepted the memos filed by the appellant seeking withdrawal of the appeals. The Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to seek revival if necessary.
The High Court accepted the memo filed by the appellant and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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The High Court accepted the memo filed by the appellant and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The appellant was granted liberty to seek revival of the appeal if necessary.
The High Court accepted the memo filed by the appellant and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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The High Court accepted the memo filed by the appellant and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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 seeking withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek revival if needed.
The High Court accepted the memo filed by the appellant praying for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek revival if needed.
The High Court accepted the memo filed by BESCOM seeking withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek revival if necessary.
The High Court accepted the memo filed by BESCOM seeking withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek revival if necessary.
The High Court accepted the memo filed by the appellant and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to seek revival of the appeal if necessary.
The High Court accepted the memos filed by the appellant seeking withdrawal of the appeals. The Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to seek revival if necessary.
The High Court accepted the memos filed by the appellant seeking withdrawal of the appeals. The Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to seek revival if necessary.
The High Court accepted the memos filed by the appellant seeking withdrawal of the appeals. The Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to seek revival if necessary.
The High Court accepted the memos filed by the appellant seeking withdrawal of the appeals. The Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to seek revival if necessary.
The High Court took the memo on record and, for the reasons stated therein, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The appellant was granted liberty to revive the appeal if the need arises.
The High Court held that the impugned demand notice was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The court found that the Assessing Authority failed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before imposing conditions for the stay of demand.
The High Court held that the issue regarding the taxability of software sale receipts as royalty has been settled by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the provisions of the Act and Rules could not be applied to students admitted in the academic years 2016-17 and 2017-18, as they were not adequately informed and did not execute bonds. However, the Act and Rules are applicable to students admitted from the academic year 2018-19 onwards.
The High Court held that the provisions of the Act and Rules could not be applied to students admitted in the academic years 2016-17 and 2017-18, as they were not adequately informed and did not execute bonds. However, the Act and Rules are applicable to students admitted from the academic year 2018-19 onwards.
The High Court held that the reassessment notice was issued on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer, as the original assessment was also made on the premise that the assessee was a developer. Therefore, the jurisdictional requirements for reopening the assessment were not met.
The High Court held that the provisions of the Act and Rules could not be applied to students admitted in the academic years 2016-17 and 2017-18, as they were not adequately informed and did not execute bonds. However, the Act and Rules are applicable to students admitted from the academic year 2018-19 onwards.
The High Court noted that the ITAT had already passed an order in favor of the appellant, rendering the current appeal infructuous. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.
The High Court noted that the appellant had filed a memo seeking to withdraw the appeal. This was due to an amicable settlement reached between the parties under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. Liberty was granted to pursue the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and to seek restoration of the petition if the settlement fails.
The High Court took the memo filed by the assessee's counsel on record. The memo stated that the dispute had been amicably settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to revive the appeal if the occasion arose. No decision on the merits of the substantial questions of law was made.
The High Court took the memo filed by the assessee on record. The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal on the ground of an amicable settlement reached under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the High 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 substantial questions of law or the merits of the ITAT's order, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds due to the settlement.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the assessee had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The reason provided for withdrawal was that the dispute had been amicably settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The Court took the aforesaid memo on record. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also 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.
The High Court granted the Revenue's request to argue the substantial question of law in a related appeal (ITA No.303/2018). With this liberty granted, the present appeal was disposed of.
The High Court modified the lower court's order, upholding the termination of tenancy but reducing the damages to the last admitted rent rate. The petitioner was granted 120 days to vacate, later extended by 9 months on humanitarian grounds.
The High Court found that the revisional authority erred by remanding the matter without making a categorical finding on the entitlement to deductions. The court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases for fresh consideration.
The High Court noted that the assessee's counsel had filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court found the Assessing Officer's finding on land ownership to be perverse, especially in light of subsequent year's assessment. The Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal, Joint Commissioner, and Assessing Officer.
The High Court noted that the assessee's counsel had filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the disallowance under Section 14A is relatable to the earning of actual exempt income, not notional or anticipated income. Expenses proportionate to earning exempt income could be disallowed.
The High Court held that the arrest warrant was issued in violation of the law, specifically citing the proviso to Section 8B(1) of the Act and the procedure stipulated in the Income Tax Rules. The court noted that arrest should be a last resort after exhausting other recovery modes.
The High Court of Karnataka took the memo filed by the assessee on record. Based on the assessee's submission that the dispute has been settled under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' Scheme, the Court decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The judgment also granted liberty to the assessee to revive the appeal if the occasion arises. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case as the appeal was withdrawn.
The Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal because the assessee had not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year. Section 14A disallowance is applicable only to expenses relatable to the earning of actual exempt income.
The High Court held that if no exempt income has accrued to the assessee, the provisions of Section 14A do not apply. Therefore, the disallowances made under Section 14A were not justified.
The High Court accepted the memo filed by the appellants (revenue). The court noted that the respondent had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, and the appellants sought withdrawal of the appeal with liberty to seek revival if the need arose. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty as prayed for in the memo. No decision on the merits of the case was made.
The High Court held that the amounts received by the assessee for the sale of software were not royalty. This was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre, which clarified that such transactions constitute a sale of goods and do not involve the use of copyright.
The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, considered a memo filed by the petitioner seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition. The Court took the memo on record and, based on the petitioner's request, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the assessment order or the underlying tax dispute. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the petition as withdrawn.
The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, did not decide the substantial question of law on merits. The judgment records that the learned counsel for the appellant filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. The memo was placed on record, and consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No findings were made on the correctness of the ITAT's order or the Principal Commissioner's order under Section 263. The assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer was also not confirmed on merits. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are to be considered "co-operative societies" for the purpose of Section 2(19) of the IT Act. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the exemption under Section 80(P).
The High Court held that the relevant regulations concerning electrical installation work do not apply to manpower agencies. It found that the tenders were for hiring personnel for operation and maintenance under supervision, not for electrical installation work, and thus did not violate any rules or constitutional provisions.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition. The memo was taken on record, and consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the assessment order. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn.
The petitioner withdrew prayers related to quashing the notice and installment payments. The court directed respondents to consider the petitioner's application for changing electricity load and name as per regulations.
The tribunal held that the rejection of the stay application was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The order was deemed unsustainable as no fair hearing was provided to the petitioner.