Loading High Court cases…
1,346 orders · Page 2 of 27
The High Court held that the bank's belief in claiming exemption for overseas travel with a domestic leg was without legal basis. Consequently, the authorities were justified in holding the assessee as an 'assessee in default'.
The High Court held that the bank's belief in claiming exemption for overseas travel with a domestic leg was without legal basis. Consequently, the authorities were justified in holding the assessee as an 'assessee in default'.
The High Court held that the bank's belief in claiming exemption for overseas travel with a domestic leg was without legal basis. Consequently, the authorities were justified in holding the assessee as an 'assessee in default'.
The High Court held that the bank's belief in claiming exemption for overseas travel with a domestic leg was without legal basis. Consequently, the authorities were justified in holding the assessee as an 'assessee in default'.
The High Court held that the bank's belief about the tax treatment of the payments was without legal basis. Consequently, the authorities were justified in treating the assessee as an 'assessee in default' under Section 201(1) of the Act.
The High Court held that the bank's belief in claiming exemption for overseas travel with a domestic leg was without legal basis. Consequently, the authorities were justified in holding the assessee as an 'assessee in default'.
The tribunal found that the impugned order did not indicate that a hearing was granted to the petitioner. Considering the petitioner's request for an opportunity of hearing, the tribunal decided to grant it.
The High Court found that the assessment order was violative of natural justice as the petitioner's objections and subsequent replies were not considered, and a personal hearing was denied. The court quashed the impugned orders.
The High Court held that the assessment order was illegal and arbitrary due to the non-consideration of the petitioner's replies and documents, violating the principles of natural justice. The court also noted a factually incorrect statement in the assessment order regarding the submission of replies.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer erred by passing the final assessment order without considering the petitioner's objections and awaiting DRP directions, violating mandatory procedures. The DRP's subsequent order was also found to be erroneous.
The tribunal held that the assessee could follow a hybrid accounting system and that the expenses incurred were allowable under Section 37(1) as they were for promoting business. It also held that amortization premiums on government securities held as long-term investments were allowable as revenue expenditure.
The High Court followed its earlier decision in a similar case and held that the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition. The substantial question of law was answered in favour of the assessee.
The High Court held that a hybrid system of accounting, mixing mercantile and cash basis within the same assessment year, is not permissible. Therefore, the income should have been recognized in the year the expenses were incurred, aligning with the mercantile method for expenses.
The High Court held that a hybrid system of accounting, mixing mercantile and cash basis within the same assessment year, is not permissible. Therefore, the income should have been recognized in the year the expenses were incurred, aligning with the mercantile method for expenses.
The High Court held that the issue was squarely covered by previous decisions of the High Court, which in turn relied on decisions of other High Courts and the Apex Court. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The High Court held that a hybrid system of accounting, mixing mercantile and cash basis within the same assessment year, is not permissible. Therefore, the income should have been recognized in the year the expenses were incurred, aligning with the mercantile method for expenses.
The High Court held that the ITAT was justified in deleting the additions. The court relied on its previous decisions in similar cases concerning Section 14A and Section 40A(2).
The High Court held that a hybrid system of accounting, mixing mercantile and cash basis within the same assessment year, is not permissible. Therefore, the income should have been recognized in the year the expenses were incurred, aligning with the mercantile method for expenses.
The High Court held that the issue was covered by a previous decision in a similar case involving the same assessee. Therefore, the substantial question of law was answered in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the ITAT was justified in deleting the additions. The court relied on its previous decisions in similar cases concerning Section 14A and Section 40A(2).
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were already decided in favour of the assessee in previous judgments. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration in these appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee can follow a hybrid system of accounting for computing business income, and that the expenditure incurred for promoting business, even if not strictly necessary, is allowable. It also held that amortization premium paid for government securities held as long-term investments is allowable as revenue expenditure.
The High Court found that the Assessing Officer's determination of construction cost lacked basis and was not disclosed. The CIT (Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without proper service of notice. Therefore, the orders of the Tribunal and CIT (Appeals) were set aside in the interest of justice.
The High Court held that a hybrid system of accounting, mixing mercantile and cash basis within the same assessment year, is not permissible. Therefore, the income should have been recognized in the year the expenses were incurred, aligning with the mercantile method for expenses.
The High Court held that the assessee can compute income under a hybrid accounting system and that accrued interest on investments is not necessarily chargeable to tax. It also held that expenditure incurred for promoting business, even if not strictly necessary, is allowable, and amortization of premium on government securities held as long-term investments is revenue expenditure.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were already decided in favour of the assessee in previous judgments. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration in these appeals.
The High Court held that a hybrid system of accounting, mixing mercantile and cash basis within the same assessment year, is not permissible. Therefore, the income should have been recognized in the year the expenses were incurred, aligning with the mercantile method for expenses.
The High Court noted that a similar direction for transfer of cases was upheld by a learned Single Judge and subsequently confirmed by a Division Bench. Therefore, the present writ petitions were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal's direction to the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order and then complete the assessment denovo was upheld. The High Court found that the assessee had not cooperated with the Assessing Officer, leading to an ex-parte order, and that the Tribunal's decision was not perverse.
The High Court noted that a similar direction for transfer of cases was upheld by a learned Single Judge and subsequently confirmed by a Division Bench. Therefore, the present writ petitions were rendered infructuous.
The High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. Liberty was granted to file a fresh petition to challenge the subsequent order regarding the stay petition.
The High Court noted that a similar direction for transfer of cases was upheld by a learned Single Judge and subsequently confirmed by a Division Bench. Therefore, the present writ petitions were rendered infructuous.
The High Court noted that a similar direction for transfer of cases was upheld by a learned Single Judge and subsequently confirmed by a Division Bench. Therefore, the present writ petitions were rendered infructuous.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant had filed a memo seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the appeal. The memo was placed on record. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the ITAT's order or the underlying tax dispute. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal due to its withdrawal by the appellant.
The High Court noted that a similar direction for transfer of cases was upheld by a learned Single Judge and subsequently confirmed by a Division Bench. Therefore, the present writ petitions were rendered infructuous.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 2 Crores, making it not maintainable under CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to revive if exceptions applied.
The High Court disposed of the appeal, granting liberty to the Revenue to revive it if the matter falls within exceptions to a CBDT circular regarding tax effect. The substantial questions of law were kept open for future adjudication.
The High Court held that for Section 54F, the investment in a residential house must be in the assessee's name, and a property in the wife's name cannot be considered as owned by the assessee. However, the court found that the assessee did not own more than one residential house other than the new asset on the date of transfer.
The tribunal held that the Assessing Officer acted arbitrarily and illegally by passing the final assessment order without waiting for directions from the DRP. The petitioner had complied with the procedure by filing objections within the stipulated period.
The Court set aside the assessment order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to submit the required information either online or physically.
The High Court quashed the assessment order and demand notice, remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer. This was done to provide the petitioners with an opportunity for a personal hearing and to present their case, as they were denied natural justice.
The High Court held that the issue was already settled by previous rulings of the same court and the Supreme Court, which affirmed that such interest payments to members do not require TDS deduction. The Revenue's counsel could not dispute this established position.
The High Court held that the ITAT's findings were based on factual aspects and legal principles, with no perversity. The issues involved were pure questions of fact, and no substantial questions of law arose.
The High Court held that the Settlement Commission's order was passed beyond the statutory limitation period and therefore abated. The reliance on the Star Television News Ltd. judgment was found to be inapplicable to applications filed after June 1, 2007.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were already decided against them in an identical appeal for AY 2011-12. Therefore, no new substantial question of law arose.
The High Court set aside the impugned order and demand notice. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to provide the petitioner with one more opportunity to present his case.
The High Court set aside the impugned order and demand notice. The matter was remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner to provide the petitioner with one more opportunity to produce documents and substantiate his claims.
The High Court set aside the impugned order and notices, remitting the matter back to the assessing officer. The petitioner was granted one more opportunity to produce documents and substantiate his claims.
The High Court set aside the impugned order and demand notice. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to provide the petitioner with one more opportunity to present his case.
The High Court found merit in the petitioner's plea regarding his wife's illness and the bonafide reasons for non-compliance. It set aside the impugned order and demand notice.