Loading High Court cases…
1,346 orders · Page 23 of 27
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant had filed a memo dated February 5, 2021, seeking withdrawal of the appeal. The memo was placed on record and allowed by the Court. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case or any substantial questions of law that might have been formulated. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court accepted the report of the Official Liquidator, finding that the company's affairs were not conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of its members or the public. The company was accordingly dissolved.
The High Court held that once an asset is classified as non-performing, it is assumed not to yield revenue, thus the question of showing that revenue and paying tax does not arise. The court affirmed the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT.
The Tribunal rightly dismissed the assessee's appeal as the issue regarding the taxability of food and drinks had attained finality in a previous round of litigation. The assessee's attempt to re-adjudicate this concluded issue was impermissible.
The High Court directed the formation of a committee to examine claims for deletion of acquired lands based on specific criteria, including prior conversion, layout formation, and construction. The BDA is to act on the committee's reports.
The Tribunal correctly held that interest accrued on non-performing assets should not be added to taxable income if the assessee follows mercantile accounting. Provisions for non-performing assets made as per RBI guidelines were also upheld.
The High Court held that assessment orders passed in the name of a non-existent company are invalid and not a mere procedural irregularity curable under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act. The assessment must be made on the successor company.
The High Court of Karnataka allowed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The appellants were granted liberty to seek revival of the appeal if the need arises. No decision was made on the merits of the case, as the appeal was withdrawn before any substantive arguments or findings could be recorded by the High Court. The ITAT's order, which confirmed the orders of the Appellate Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax for Assessment Year 2015-2016, therefore, remains undisturbed by this High Court order.
The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, considered a memo filed by the assessee praying for leave to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was sought with liberty to revive the appeal in the event the dispute was not settled under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Court took the memo on record and disposed of the appeal as withdrawn. The liberty to approach the Court was granted in the event the dispute was not settled under the aforementioned Scheme. No decision was made on the merits of the original appeal.
The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition to file an appeal under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act. The court allowed the withdrawal, keeping the petitioner's contentions open.
The High Court of Karnataka, upon hearing the matter, noted that the learned counsel for the assessee had filed a memo seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the appeal. The Court took the aforesaid memo on record. For the reasons assigned in the memo, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if occasion so arises. No decision was made on the merits of the case.
The High Court, upon a memo filed by the assessee seeking leave to withdraw the appeal, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to revive the appeal if necessary.
The High Court held that Section 50C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to the assessee as they were merely a consenting witness and not the transferor of the land. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on other substantial questions of law.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the assessee had filed a memo seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the appeal. The memo was taken on record. For the reasons assigned in the memo, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court granted liberty to the assessee to revive the appeal if occasion so arises. No decision was made on the substantive questions of law or the merits of the case, as the appeal was withdrawn by the assessee.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the assessee had filed a memo seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the appeal. For the reasons assigned in the memo, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court granted liberty to the assessee to revive the appeal if occasion so arises. No decision on the merits of the substantial questions of law was made.
The assessee's counsel filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.
The assessee's counsel filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The court took the memo on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the assessee's memo and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances warranted it.
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, after hearing the learned counsel for the assessee, noted that the assessee had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The Court took the memo on record and, for the reasons assigned therein, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if occasion arose. No decision on the merits of the case was made. The specific findings of the ITAT that were under challenge were not discussed or decided by the High Court.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the assessee had filed a memo seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the appeal. The memo was taken on record. For the reasons assigned in the memo, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if the occasion arose. No decision was made on the substantial questions of law that were intended to be formulated, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.
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 found that the penalty order, though referencing AY 2008-09, was based on facts pertaining to AY 2007-08, which was not a mere clerical error protected by Section 292B. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.
The High Court allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive it if necessary.
The High Court of Karnataka, after considering a memo filed by the assessee seeking leave to withdraw the appeal, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court granted liberty to the assessee to revive the appeal if the occasion arises. No decision on the merits of the substantial questions of law or the ITAT's order was made. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the appeal due to its withdrawal by the appellant.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the assessee had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. For the reasons stated in the memo, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if occasion so arises. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law that were intended to be raised.
The High Court noted that the assessee's counsel had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. For the reasons stated in the memo, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if the occasion arose. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the assessee had filed a memo seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the appeal. This memo was taken on record. 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 occasion arises. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law or the findings of the ITAT. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court considered the Memo for withdrawal of the appeal filed by the appellant. The appellant's counsel stated that the Tribunal had allowed an application and recalled the order dated 27.09.2019 passed in ITA No.718/Bang/2013. The High Court accepted the Memo and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court also granted the appellant liberty to file a fresh appeal if the need arises in the future. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original dispute, as the appeal was disposed of on the procedural ground of withdrawal.
The High Court considered the memo filed by the assessee's counsel seeking to withdraw the appeal. For the reasons stated in the memo, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, liberty was granted 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 intended to be raised.
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, upon considering the memo filed by the assessee seeking leave to withdraw the appeal, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court granted liberty to the assessee to revive the appeal if occasion arises. No decision on the substantial questions of law or the merits of the ITAT's order was made, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds based on the assessee's request.
The High Court held that the issue is covered by its previous judgment in ITA No. 393/2014, which allowed proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) based on the percentage completion method. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the deduction.
The High Court accepted the Revenue's memo for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to seek revival if necessary.
The High Court held that coffee plantations are not considered 'agricultural land' under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act in the context of Karnataka. Therefore, the SARFAESI Act is applicable to these lands.
The High Court held that coffee plantations are not considered 'agricultural land' under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act in the context of Karnataka. Therefore, the SARFAESI Act is applicable to these lands.
The High Court accepted the report of the Official Liquidator, finding that the company's affairs were not conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of its members or the public. The company was accordingly dissolved.
The High Court accepted the Revenue's memo for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to seek revival if necessary.
The High Court held that the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be adjudicated on merits by the Tribunal. The Tribunal's prior order on the Miscellaneous Petition was set aside.
The High Court held that since the Assessing Officer did not pass the order giving effect to the Commissioner's order within the stipulated time, the questions of law in the appeal had become academic. Therefore, the Court did not deem it necessary to answer them.
The High Court held that the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be adjudicated on merits by the Tribunal. The Tribunal's prior order on the Miscellaneous Petition was set aside.
The High Court of Karnataka, while considering the appeal filed by the Revenue, noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the Revenue. The Revenue contended that the addition in the case was less than Rs.1 crore and, therefore, the appeal was not maintainable in view of the monetary limits prescribed in Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. Based on this submission, the Revenue sought leave to withdraw the appeal with liberty to make a prayer for restoration if occasion so arises. The Court granted the liberty as sought by the learned counsel for the Revenue and disposed of the appeal. No decision was made on the merits of the case.
The High Court held that the principle of reading down a provision should not be applied merely on grounds of hardship or equity in taxation laws. The court found that Section 206AA was enacted to prevent tax evasion and create a transaction database, and its application was not limited to those with income above the taxable limit.
The High Court confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence. It held that the contravention of Section 269 SS of the Income Tax Act does not void the transaction and that the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act.
The High Court of Karnataka, after considering a memo filed by the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee seeking leave to withdraw the appeal, 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 intended to be formulated, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground. The reasoning for the withdrawal was stated to be in the memo, which was taken on record by the Court.
The High Court noted that the winding up of the assessee company rendered the questions of law academic. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of with liberty to revive if necessary.
The High Court noted that the assessee company was ordered to be wound up. Consequently, the questions of law raised in the appeal were rendered academic.
The High Court held that the ITAT was wrong in dismissing the appeal solely on the tax effect. It ruled that notional tax on disputed additions, which exceeded the threshold, should have been considered, making the appeal maintainable.
The High Court, in view of the assessee's submission regarding opting for the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme, allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.
The High Court allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the petition. Consequently, the appeal filed by M/s Kalki Communication Technologies Private Limited was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the assessee had filed a memo seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the appeal. This memo was taken on record. Consequently, the High Court ordered that the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law that were intended to be formulated. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the appeal due to its withdrawal by the appellant.
The High Court of Karnataka allowed the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners to withdraw the petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the appeal or the issues raised in the original proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was made. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.