Loading High Court cases…
1,346 orders · Page 20 of 27
The High Court took on record the memo filed by the appellant. For the reasons stated in the memo, the appeal was dismissed as having become infructuous.
The High Court allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted on the grounds that the matter had been amicably settled under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' Scheme.
The High Court noted the submission that the appeals had become infructuous. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of on this basis.
The High Court acknowledged the petitioner's laches in not producing account books but also noted the importance of examining whether transportation falls under the definition of 'sale'. To do substantial justice, the court decided to grant one more opportunity.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were concluded against the Revenue based on Supreme Court and High Court judgments. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were concluded against the Revenue based on previous Supreme Court and High Court decisions. The Revenue's counsel could not dispute this submission.
The High Court, for the reasons assigned in the memo, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were concluded against the Revenue based on Supreme Court and High Court decisions. The Revenue's counsel could not dispute this submission.
The High Court held that the issue was settled by the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee based on various Supreme Court and High Court decisions. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court noted that the issues in this appeal had become academic in view of decisions in connected appeals. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of with liberty to revive.
The High Court held that the issues were concluded against the Revenue based on previous judgments. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, considered a memo filed by the petitioner seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition. The memo requested liberty to revive the petition if found necessary. The Court accepted the memo and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The operative direction is the dismissal of the writ petition with the liberty granted to the petitioner to revive it. No decision was made on the merits of the application under Section 12AA or Form 10A. The specific relief sought, i.e., consideration of the application, was not adjudicated upon due to the withdrawal.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were concluded against the Revenue based on previous Supreme Court and High Court decisions. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the issue was settled by a Supreme Court judgment in a similar case. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that an order of conversion of land for non-agricultural purposes under Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, does not exempt the land from the provisions of the PTCL Act. However, once the land is diverted, it ceases to be 'granted land' under the PTCL Act, and the requirement of obtaining permission under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act does not arise.
The High Court noted the submission that the appeals had become infructuous. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of on this basis.
The High Court accepted the memo filed by the appellant seeking withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the appellant had approached the Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Act, 2020 scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to approach the High Court again if the dispute was not resolved under the Vivad Se Viswas scheme. No substantial questions of law were formulated or decided on merits, and the operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 54F requiring investment in a residential house in India was prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim exemption for investment made in a foreign residential property.
The High Court held that the ITAT failed to consider the CIT(A)'s reasoning and wrongly remanded the matter. The court quashed the ITAT's order, answering the second substantial question of law in favour of the assessee.
The High Court found that a subsequent order by the Assessing Officer, giving effect to a Section 263 order, rendered the substantial questions of law academic. Therefore, the appeal did not require an answer on its merits.
The High Court set aside the impugned order because the revision petition was misunderstood. The respondent was directed to consider the revision petition as filed against the rejection of the rectification application and pass orders accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in entertaining the fresh claim made by the assessee, as the assessee did not have an opportunity to rectify the error before the automated CPC processing. The High Court affirmed that appellate authorities have the power to entertain claims not made in the original or revised return.
The High Court held that the power to consider re-conveyance requests for acquired land rests with the Deputy Commissioner and cannot be delegated to the Assistant Commissioner. The impugned endorsement was quashed.
The High Court disposed of the appeal in the same terms as another related appeal (ITA No. 4/2015). The specific findings of the High Court on the substantial questions of law are not detailed in this excerpt, but the disposal implies a decision on these points.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were answered against the Revenue based on its own previous judgments. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court quashed the Tribunal's order regarding the first substantial question of law (classification of computerization expenditure) and remitted it for fresh consideration. The other substantial questions of law were decided against the revenue.
The High Court held that the issue was concluded by previous judgments of the same court. The Revenue was unable to dispute the assessee's submission regarding these prior decisions.
The High Court noted that the assessee's counsel had filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. For the reasons stated in the memo, the Court allowed the withdrawal.
The High Court took the memo on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal.
The Tribunal correctly held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 54F as one of the properties was let out for commercial purposes, making it not a residential property. The Commissioner's revision under Section 263 was not justified as the Assessing Officer's view was a possible and lawful interpretation.
The Tribunal erred in disallowing the incentive payments. The High Court held that the revenue cannot dictate the manner in which incentives are paid and that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, aligning with CBDT circulars and judicial precedents.
The High Court noted that the respondent had filed a memo dated 24.02.2021, informing the Court that the matter had been amicably settled between the parties under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the respondent sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Court allowed the said memo and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law that might have been raised in the appeal.
The High Court held that expenditure incurred on leasehold improvements for a period of three years, which did not create a capital asset for the assessee but facilitated business operations, is revenue expenditure. It also affirmed that ATMs are computers eligible for higher depreciation.
The High Court held that the current writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had unconditionally withdrawn a previous petition concerning the same subject matter. This withdrawal was deemed to be an abandonment of the cause of action under public policy, discouraging bench-hunting tactics.
The High Court held that the AAAR was justified in rejecting the appeal due to the delay, as it lacked the power to condone delays beyond the statutory limit. The court also noted that it could not condone the delay beyond the statutory period, citing Supreme Court judgments.
The High Court allowed the memo filed by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court granted the appellant the liberty to review the decision if the dispute was not settled under the Direct Tax Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020. The reasoning was based on the appellant's undertaking to settle the tax dispute under the aforementioned scheme and their request for withdrawal. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to review.
The High Court of Karnataka considered a memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. The memo was taken on record, and the Court allowed the memo. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case or the substantial questions of law that might have been intended to be raised. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn based on the appellant's request.
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, upon considering a memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellants and the submissions made, accepted the memo. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the case was rendered. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, without any specific relief granted or issue left undecided, as the appeal itself was not pressed on its merits.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant had filed a memo dated 09.02.2021 seeking withdrawal of the appeal. The Court allowed this prayer. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the original challenge to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The tribunal held that the accused committed a willful breach of the court's order and his undertaking. He was sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment and a fine, with the sentence suspended pending payment of dues.
The High Court noted that the present appeal was filed by the revenue challenging the dismissal of the assessee's cross-objection. Since ITA No. 12/2020, which dealt with the revenue's appeal, was disposed of separately, the High Court found no reason to consider the present appeal.
The tribunal held that the income earned from non-members, such as pay and park charges, tower rents, and fixed deposit interest, is not covered by the doctrine of mutuality. Therefore, the exemption claimed by the assessee was not admissible.
The High Court allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that learned counsel for the appellant had filed a memo dated 09.02.2021 seeking withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No findings were made on the merits of the case, and the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not adjudicated upon by the High Court. The principle that can be cited from this judgment is that an appeal can be dismissed as withdrawn if the appellant so requests and the court grants permission.
The tribunal modified the compensation awarded in one case by recalculating the income and applying multipliers for future prospects and dependency. It also adjusted the apportionment of negligence between the bus and car drivers, holding the car driver 90% negligent and the bus driver 10% negligent.
The tribunal held that dismissing the appeal on a technical ground of a one-day delay without putting the petitioner on notice violated the principles of natural justice. The petitioner should have been given an opportunity to rectify the defect.
The High Court, referring to a related judgment, answered the substantial questions of law against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was found to be without merit and was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer has the power to re-determine the income under Section 8 of the State Act, as only 75% of the income was considered for assessment. The assessee's argument that the Central Officer's computation must be accepted was rejected.
The High Court took on record a memo filed by the assessee seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. For the reasons stated in the memo, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the transfer of shares was not liable to LTCG tax in the hands of the shareholders. The court found no merit in the revenue's appeal.