Loading High Court cases…
1,346 orders · Page 22 of 27
The High Court held that the complainant's pleadings were vague regarding the loan amount and its advancement, and the transaction might be time-barred. The court found that the accused had rebutted the presumption in favor of the complainant.
The High Court allowed the memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellants seeking withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case. The specific findings or reasoning of the Tribunal or the lower authorities are not discussed as the appeal was withdrawn.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the Court placed the memo on record and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. Liberty was reserved to initiate proceedings if the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme does not materialize.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act were not applicable to the payments made by the assessee to Karnataka Housing Board and RITES Ltd. This was based on the nature of the agreements and the remuneration structure, which the Tribunal found to be service charges rather than payments to contractors.
The Tribunal erred in treating the amount received by the assessee as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). The amounts were in the nature of security deposit and trade advances arising from a commercial transaction, not loans or advances for individual benefit.
The High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. Liberty was granted to file an application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and to restore the writ petition if the settlement does not materialize.
The High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to file an application for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and to seek restoration of the writ petition if the settlement does not materialize.
The High Court allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was granted with liberty to revive the appeal if necessary.
The High Court considered the memo filed by the petitioner seeking withdrawal of the writ petition. The petitioner's request was based on their intention to pursue settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Court allowed the withdrawal of the writ petition. It explicitly granted liberty to the petitioner to initiate proceedings regarding the same cause of action if the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme did not materialize. No decision was made on the merits of the original assessment order or the demand notice, as the petition was withdrawn. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition with liberty reserved.
The High Court, in light of the memo filed by the petitioner, dismissed the writ petition. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to initiate proceedings regarding the same cause of action if the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme does not materialize. No decision was made on the merits of the assessment order or the demand notice. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition with liberty reserved.
The High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. Liberty was granted to approach the court again if the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme does not materialize.
The High Court considered a memo filed by the petitioner seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition. The petitioner's stated intention was to file an application for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and avail its benefits. The Court noted that the petitioner requested liberty to seek restoration of the writ petition if the settlement under the scheme did not materialize. In light of this memo, the Court dismissed the petition. Liberty was reserved to initiate proceedings regarding the same cause of action if the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme does not materialize. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition with liberty reserved.
The High Court considered the memo filed by the petitioner. In light of the memo, the Court dismissed the writ petition. Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to initiate proceedings regarding the same cause of action if the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme does not materialize. The Court also overruled office objections in light of the memo filed. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition with liberty to refile if the settlement fails.
The High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. Liberty was reserved to initiate proceedings if the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme does not materialize.
The High Court allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was granted with liberty to revive the appeal if necessary in the future.
The High Court noted that the assessee's subsequent application for registration under Section 12A(1) rendered the substantial questions of law in the appeal academic. Therefore, it was not necessary to answer them.
The High Court found that the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner, violating principles of natural justice. The court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
The tribunal held that the ITO rejected the stay application without providing an opportunity to the petitioner and without considering whether the assessment was unreasonably high-pitched or caused genuine hardship. The impugned order was therefore in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The tribunal held that the impugned order rejecting the stay application was passed without providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted for reconsideration.
The High Court found that the ITAT had not properly adjudicated the issues regarding the write-off of loose tools and the nexus between interest-bearing and interest-free funds. The court held that these matters required fresh adjudication by the ITAT.
The tribunal held that the rejection of the stay application was in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard. The tribunal also emphasized that the Commissioner should consider whether the assessment was unreasonably high-pitched or caused genuine hardship.
The High Court allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the assessee to revive it if necessary.
The High Court held that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80IB(10) on a proportionate basis for flats measuring less than 1500 sq ft. It also held that the assessee was entitled to deduction for combined 12th and 13th floor flats and that the income should be computed on the basis of the 'Project computation method'.
The tribunal held that the rejection of the stay application by the Principal Commissioner was in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity was given to the petitioner. The court also referred to previous judgments regarding the consideration of high-pitched assessments and genuine hardship.
The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in refusing to adjudicate the issue of limitation, as the setting aside of the previous order restored the appeal to its original position. Therefore, the Tribunal was directed to decide the limitation issue.
The High Court noted the assessee's submission regarding the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and the issuance of Form 3. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were already answered against the revenue in a previous, similar case. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The High Court held that the first three substantial questions of law were already decided in favour of the assessee by previous judgments. For the fourth question, it was held that AS-7 is not applicable to developers, and the accounting method used was revenue-neutral, thus also favouring the assessee.
The High Court, in view of the assessee's submission regarding the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if necessary.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was either non-est or saved under Section 292B of the Act. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal, noting that similar substantial questions of law were previously decided against the revenue.
The High Court, by referring to a related judgment, answered the substantial questions of law against the revenue and in favor of the assessee. The tribunal's decision regarding the deduction under Section 80IB(10) and income computation was upheld.
The High Court noted the submission by the learned counsel for the assessee that the matter has been amicably settled under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' Scheme and Form No.3 has been issued in favour of the assessee. Taking this statement on record, the High Court disposed of the appeal preferred by the revenue. The appeal was disposed of with liberty granted to the revenue to revive the same if occasion so arises. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law that were to be formulated.
The High Court held that the Tribunal's finding on the scientific estimation of warranty provision was correct. It also affirmed that leave encashment and warranty provisions should be allowed in book profit calculation, citing Supreme Court precedents.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, following its decision in a related case. The specific grounds for the ITAT's decision regarding Section 80IB and overhead allocation were not detailed in this judgment.
The Tribunal held that the Additional Commissioner erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction without properly considering all the materials on record. The court found that the Additional Commissioner failed to provide adequate reasoning for overturning the Joint Commissioner's order.
The High Court noted the assessee's submission regarding the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and the issuance of Form 3. Consequently, the Court allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The High Court held that the re-assessment proceedings for certain periods were barred by limitation. It also found that the Assessing Authority had not independently analyzed the transactions and the Tribunal failed to do so.
The High Court accepted the memo for withdrawal and disposed of the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if the dispute was not settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction, relying on previous decisions. The High Court, following its own precedent in similar cases, held that the substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue.
The High Court noted the assessee's submission regarding the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and the issuance of Form 3. Consequently, the Court allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The High Court, in view of the assessee's submission regarding the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if necessary.
The Tribunal was justified in holding that a provision for NPA is, in substance, a provision for bad and doubtful debts. The High Court affirmed that once an asset is classified as non-performing, it is assumed not to be yielding revenue, thus not subject to tax.
The High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the reallocation of expenses. The court followed a previous judgment in an identical case involving the same assessee for a different assessment year.
The High Court held that the substantial question of law was squarely answered by its previous decision in Brigade Enterprises Ltd. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80IB(10).
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant had filed a memo dated 03.02.2021 for the withdrawal of the appeal. The memo was placed on record, and the Court allowed it. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case or any of the underlying issues that might have been raised in the original appeal. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court accepted the Memo for withdrawal filed by the appellant-assessee. The appeal was disposed of in terms of the Memo, granting the assessee liberty to pursue the matter in case of any eventuality. The court did not decide on the merits of the original appeal or the order of the ITAT. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the assessee.
The High Court found that the Valuation Report mentioned standing trees, and the Record of Rights showed the assessees' names. However, the report did not clearly indicate if the trees were on the specific disputed land, necessitating further factual determination.
The High Court accepted the assessee's oral submission for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law that might have arisen from the ITAT's order. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the substantial question of law regarding the deduction under Section 80IB(10) was squarely answered in a previous judgment of the same court in 'CIT Vs. Brigade Enterprises Ltd.'. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.