Loading High Court cases…
1,346 orders · Page 21 of 27
The High Court, following a related judgment, found no merit in the revenue's appeal. The substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
The High Court held that the Tribunal was correct in its findings. The court found no merit in the revenue's appeal, stating that the substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue.
The High Court held that the firm BVRE was genuine and the transactions were not colorable devices. The court found that the assessee followed a permissible legal course, even if it resulted in lower tax liability, and that the addition for non-existent liability was not substantiated.
The High Court, for reasons assigned in a related judgment, answered the substantial questions of law against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeal was found to have no merit.
The High Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal against the assessment order, noting the prima facie similarity to his brother's case. The demand notices were kept in abeyance pending the appeal's disposal.
The High Court held that foreign exchange fluctuation loss is an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The court also referred to the Tribunal's decision which set aside the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer.
The High Court found no merit in the revenue's appeal. It held that the substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
The High Court allowed the petitioner to pay the remaining dues under Section 249(4)(a) within four weeks. The order of the CIT(A) and the endorsement rejecting the Vivad Se Vishwas application were set aside, and the appeal was restored for fresh consideration.
The High Court allowed the petitioner to pay the remaining dues under Section 249(4)(a) within four weeks. The order of the CIT(A) and the endorsement rejecting the Vivad Se Vishwas application were set aside, and the appeal was restored for reconsideration.
The High Court held that the Tribunal was correct in its decision. The Court found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, stating that the substantial questions of law were answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
The High Court held that the Tribunal was right in deleting the protective assessment. The Court answered the substantial question of law against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
The High Court upheld the single judge's decision to allow assessees to file or revise their TRAN-1 forms, granting them an extended deadline. This was to ensure they could claim CENVAT credit earned under the previous tax regime.
The High Court held that income from sale of business assets, even if assessed as capital gains, retains its character as business income and is eligible for set off against brought forward business loss. The Court remitted the matter for fresh adjudication on other issues.
The High Court disposed of the appeal based on a CBDT circular regarding tax effect. The court granted the Revenue liberty to revive the appeal if exceptions under the circular applied, keeping the substantial questions of law open.
The tribunal held that an anomaly existed where a junior was drawing more pay than his seniors due to differing increment rates in different years. The court upheld the CAT's decision, citing executive instructions designed to remove such pay anomalies.
The High Court disposed of the appeal, granting liberty to the revenue to revive it if it falls within exceptions under CBDT circulars. The substantial questions of law were kept open for future adjudication.
The High Court upheld the single judge's decision to allow assessees to file or revise their TRAN-1 forms, granting them an extended deadline. This was to ensure they could claim CENVAT credit earned under the previous tax regime.
The High Court upheld the single judge's decision to allow assessees to file or revise their TRAN-1 forms, granting them an extended deadline. This was to ensure they could claim CENVAT credit earned under the previous tax regime.
The High Court upheld the single judge's decision to allow assessees to file or revise their TRAN-1 forms, granting them an extended deadline. This was to ensure they could claim CENVAT credit earned under the previous tax regime.
The High Court upheld the single judge's decision to allow assessees to file or revise their TRAN-1 forms, granting them an extended deadline. This was to ensure they could claim CENVAT credit earned under the previous tax regime.
The High Court disposed of the appeal based on a CBDT circular regarding tax effect. The court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the appeal if exceptions under the circular apply, keeping the substantial questions of law open.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter. It clarified that the inquiry into the use of assets for claiming depreciation should be restricted to the assessment years in dispute.
The High Court held that the second substantial question of law, concerning the disallowance under Section 14A, was already decided in favor of the assessee in a previous case. Therefore, the appeal lacked merit.
The High Court took the memo on record and, for the reasons assigned therein, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the occasion arises.
The High Court took the memo on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the occasion arises.
The High Court took on record the memo filed by the assessee's counsel seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. For the reasons stated in the memo, 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 merits of the substantial questions of law that were to be formulated.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant had filed a Memo for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the Court allowed the Memo and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to file a fresh appeal in the future, should the need arise. No decision was made on the merits of the case, as the appeal was disposed of on the appellant's request for withdrawal. The specific findings of the ITAT or the reasoning behind them were not addressed by the High Court due to the withdrawal.
The High Court of Karnataka noted that the learned counsel for the appellant had filed a Memo for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the Court allowed the Memo and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court also granted liberty to the appellant to file a fresh appeal in the future, if the need arises. No decision on the merits of the case or any substantial question of law was made.
The High Court held that the payment made to clear encumbrances on the property was a business expenditure incurred for commercial expediency. The Tribunal erred in not considering this payment as a cost of the project and in ignoring subsequent agreements modifying the understanding between the parties.
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru allowed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The court noted that a memo dated 11.02.2021 was filed by the appellant seeking withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the original order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, with no further directions or relief granted to either party on the substantive issues.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution. The court noted that on a previous date, the learned counsel for the petitioner had stated there were no instructions to proceed with the matter. On the day of the hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Consequently, the court found no reason to proceed with the merits of the case and disposed of the petition due to the petitioner's failure to prosecute it. No decision was made on the validity of the assessment order itself.
The High Court found that the impugned order was not a speaking order as it did not address the grounds raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the order was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.
The High Court held that when a subsequent order of assessment is passed for the same assessment year, the previous order gets effaced. Therefore, the second order dated 22.03.2016 prevails.
The High Court found that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit, as the Will clearly established the plaintiffs' ownership of the suit schedule premises. The Release Deed concerning the first floor was irrelevant to the dispute over the second floor.
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 BDA's appeal was without merit as similar acquisition notifications had been quashed in previous cases, and the BDA had not appealed those decisions. The court found no justification for the BDA to single out the current respondents.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as it had availed benefits under the 'Vivid se Vishwas' scheme. The court permitted the withdrawal.
The High Court quashed the cancellation order, accepting the petitioner's undertaking to comply with the lease-cum-sale agreement terms within six months. The court noted the petitioner had already put up a structure and secured electricity.
The Tribunal held that Section 194H provisions were not attracted to provisions for commission as no payment was made to identified agents. It also held that consultancy charges were not capital expenditure as no new asset was created, and the benefit was not enduring.
The High Court noted that the issue in the appeal had become academic due to the ITAT recalling its order. The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal with liberty to revive it later.
The High Court took on record the memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellant seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. For the reasons assigned in the memo, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted liberty to the appellant to revive the appeal in case occasion arises. No decision was made on the merits of the case, and the specific findings or reasoning of the ITAT were not discussed or adjudicated upon by the High Court. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court noted that the assessee's counsel filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeals. For the reasons stated in the memo, the Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the assessee had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. This memo was taken on record. For the reasons assigned in the memo, the High Court ordered that the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn. The court also granted liberty to the assessee to revive the appeal in case occasion arises. No decision was made on the merits of any substantial questions of law, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court held that provisions for loss on derivative contracts cannot be allowed when actual sales have not occurred and maturity dates have not arisen. It also held that Section 14A is not applicable when no exempt income has been earned by the assessee.
The High Court, following a previous judgment, answered the substantial questions of law against the revenue and in favor of the assessee. The court found no merit in the appeal.
The High Court noted that the assessee's counsel filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeals. For the reasons stated in the memo, the Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The High Court of Karnataka considered the memo filed by the assessee's counsel seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The Court took the memo on record. For the reasons assigned in the memo, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court also granted liberty to the assessee to revive the appeal in case occasion arises. No decision was made on the merits of the case.
The High Court allowed the review petition and restored ITA No. 372/2013. The Court considered the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the review petitioners (Revenue). Specifically, the Court was invited to consider an order dated 16.06.2017 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court in Review Petition No. 41/2017. In that prior case, under similar circumstances, the review petition was allowed, and the appeals were restored. The present Division Bench found no reason to deviate from the view adopted by the earlier Division Bench. Therefore, following the precedent set in RP No. 41/2017, the Court allowed the current review petition and restored ITA No. 372/2013 to the file for independent hearing. No specific issues from the original appeal were decided on merits in this review proceeding.
The High Court found that the agreement of sale was doubtful and created under suspicious circumstances, and the trial court erred in exercising discretion for specific performance. The appellate court also failed to properly consider the grounds of appeal.
The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in quashing the compulsory retirement order, stating that the employee's actions clearly violated service rules. The court emphasized that the existing rules regarding marriage must be followed and cannot be disregarded based on changing societal views.