Loading High Court cases…
1,346 orders · Page 19 of 27
The High Court found that the ITAT's order was cryptic and lacked reasoning, failing to consider relevant statutory provisions. Therefore, the High Court quashed the ITAT's order.
The High Court held that substantial questions of law (i) and (iii) were rendered academic due to efflux of time. Substantial question of law (ii) was answered in favor of the assessee, following a Supreme Court decision.
The High Court found that the ITAT's order was cryptic and lacked reasoning, failing to consider relevant statutory provisions. Therefore, the High Court quashed the ITAT's order.
The High Court found that the ITAT's order was cryptic and lacked reasoning, failing to consider relevant statutory provisions. Therefore, the High Court quashed the ITAT's order.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as the issue had become academic. The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.
The High Court noted that provisional pension was being paid and a departmental enquiry was pending. The court set aside the CAT's order only to the extent of imposing costs on the Union of India, considering there was no intentional delay in withholding pension.
The tribunal held that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on the provision made. However, the High Court ruled that TDS is only deductible when income accrues or is paid, and not on hypothetical or reversed provisions.
The High Court held that the CCS(Conduct) Rules do not require permission for publishing a book, and the punishment was imposed as the employee attempted to expose departmental officers. The Tribunal's order to conduct a de novo enquiry and quash the charge sheet was set aside.
The High Court of Karnataka decided that since the present appeal (ITA No. 4/2021) and ITA No. 3/2021 challenge the identical order dated 06.02.2020 passed by the ITAT, Bengaluru, for the assessment year 2011-2012, and involve the same substantial questions of law, the present appeal stands disposed of. The Court explicitly stated that it has not made any observations on the merits of the case. The operative direction is that the appeal is disposed of without prejudice to the proceedings in ITA No. 3/2021 or any other related matters. No specific issue was left undecided as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds.
The High Court found that the factual controversy required fresh adjudication. It quashed the orders of the Tribunal, CIT(A), and Assessing Officer, remitting the matter back for a fresh assessment.
The High Court took the memo on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the occasion arises.
The High Court noted that the substantial questions of law had become academic. Therefore, it was not necessary to answer them. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to revive if necessary.
The High Court found that the Tribunal's findings were perverse and contrary to the record. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The High Court quashed the orders of the Tribunal, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and Assessing Officer. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The High Court allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to restore it if necessary.
The tribunal held that the petitioner was aware of the quarter's type and the rules regarding retention and overstaying. The court agreed that penal rent was correctly charged for unauthorized occupation and that the Supreme Court's judgment in Rafiq Masih was not applicable.
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 Tribunal held that the completed contract method was permissible for real estate developers, especially when the revenue recognition would be taxed in subsequent years. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the Revenue had accepted the completed contract method for later assessment years.
The High Court quashed the orders of the Tribunal, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and Assessing Officer. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the completed contract method was permissible for real estate developers, especially when the revenue recognition would be taxed in subsequent years. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the Revenue had accepted the completed contract method for later assessment years.
The Tribunal was correct in allowing the application for approval under Section 80G, setting aside the CIT's order. The High Court followed a previous Division Bench judgment which held that a similar question of law was covered by a precedent.
The High Court held that sub-rule (2) of Rule 57 of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not mandatory and can be applied with necessary modifications if incorporated in the sale notice. The DRT was justified in extending the time for payment as the sale notice contained a clause for extension.
The High Court found that neither the CIT(A) nor the Tribunal had properly considered the issue of whether the transaction was a colourable device to evade tax. The Court held that an adjudication on this specific issue was required.
The High Court of Karnataka, in light of the Circular dated 08.08.2019, held that the appeal is not maintainable because the tax limit is less than Rs.One Crore. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case or the ITAT's order. The reasoning is solely based on the administrative instruction provided by the circular, which sets a threshold for filing appeals. Therefore, the operative direction is to dispose of the appeal as not maintainable. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the appeal was dismissed on a preliminary ground.
The High Court held that the writ petition challenging the assessment order was not maintainable as the petitioner had already availed alternative remedies. However, the court directed the Assessing Authority to pass orders on the pending stay application.
The High Court held that the writ petition challenging an assessment order, which is already pending in appeal, is not maintainable. However, the court directed the Assessing Authority to decide the pending stay application.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee, following a Supreme Court judgment. Consequently, the ITAT's order was quashed.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law involved in the appeals were covered by previous decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court itself. These decisions were in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law involved in the appeals were covered by previous decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court itself. These decisions were in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law involved in the appeals were covered by previous decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court itself. These decisions were in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law involved in the appeals were covered by previous decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court itself. These decisions were in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the grounds of arrest, as recorded in the remand applications and other documents, sufficiently indicated the objective satisfaction of the arresting officer regarding the petitioner's guilt. The court found no infirmity in the arrest made and that the grounds of arrest were in compliance with the requirements.
The High Court granted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the assessee had approached the department under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty was granted to the assessee to revive the appeal in the future if the need arose. No decision was made on the merits of the original ITAT order.
The assessee's counsel filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the appeals. The Court took the memo on record and allowed the withdrawal.
The High Court took note of the assessee's submission regarding the 'Vivad se Vishwas' Scheme. Consequently, the Court permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The assessee's counsel filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the appeals. The Court took the memo on record and allowed the withdrawal.
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 held that the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) was not applicable to the assessment year in question as the assessee's activities constituted expansion, not extension, of business. It also found that the Tribunal correctly rectified its earlier order regarding processing charges.
The High Court held that the KERC has the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between generating companies and licensees under the Electricity Act, 2003. The Single Judge's order allowing the writ petition was set aside.
The High Court held that the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) was not applicable to the assessment year in question as the assessee's activities constituted expansion, not extension, of business. It also found that the Tribunal correctly rectified its earlier order regarding processing charges.
The High Court held that the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) was not applicable to the assessment year in question as the assessee's activities constituted expansion, not extension, of business. It also found that the Tribunal correctly rectified its earlier order regarding processing charges.
The Tribunal held that income of non-residents by way of commission cannot be considered as accrued or arisen in India if services were rendered and commission paid outside India. The High Court upheld this decision.
The High Court noted that the main prayer of the writ petition had been fulfilled. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as infructuous.
The High Court held that if no exempt income has accrued to the assessee, the provisions of Section 14A do not apply. This was based on an admitted fact that the assessee had not claimed any exempt income.
The Court found that the Assessing Officer passed the order imposing penalty without hearing the petitioner, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order was set aside.
The High Court held that a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory before initiating proceedings under Section 148, especially when income has escaped assessment. The communication rejecting the petitioner's objections was set aside as it was contrary to the Supreme Court's judgment.
The High Court allowed the assessee's memo to be taken on record. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the impugned order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not heard. Therefore, the order was set aside.
The High Court took the memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal on record. The Court then dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the second substantial question of law was covered by Supreme Court decisions and answered it against the revenue. For the first question, the court found the ITAT's order cryptic and lacking application of mind regarding Section 11(4A) conditions.