Loading High Court cases…
1,346 orders · Page 24 of 27
The tribunal held that the petitioner-company is liable to pay the arrears of dues to GESCOM as they purchased the unit as a going concern. However, the quantification of the exact amount is to be determined by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission.
The Tribunal held that capitalization of expenditure on renovation and modernization is a condition precedent for claiming deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iv)(c). However, the High Court found that the provision does not mandate capitalization in the books of accounts, and 'undertaking' renovation and modernization is sufficient.
The High Court of Karnataka noted the submission made by the assessee's counsel that the assessee had approached the Income Tax Department under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and that Form 3 under the scheme had been issued. Based on this submission, the assessee sought leave to withdraw the appeal. The Court took the memo filed in this regard on record. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court also granted liberty to the assessee to revive the appeal if the occasion arises. No decision was made on the merits of the original appeal.
The High Court allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive if necessary.
The High Court quashed the ITAT's order and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is to adjudicate the issue of whether the notice issued under Section 143(2) was barred by limitation and contrary to the Act.
The High Court noted the submission by the assessee's counsel that she had no instructions to argue the appeal. Based on this submission, the High Court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law or the underlying tax dispute. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The High Court allowed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners (Revenue) to withdraw the petition. Consequently, the petition (appeal) was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the case was made. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No specific issues were decided on their substance, and no ratio decidendi for future citation was established as the appeal was not pressed.
The High Court found that the ITAT erred in hearing the appeal ex-parte without proper application of mind to the facts, particularly the death of the original assessee. The tribunal failed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the appellant to present their case.
The High Court noted that the issue of whether the notice under Section 143(2) was barred by limitation was not adjudicated by the lower authorities. Therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal was quashed and the matter was remitted back.
The High Court, following a related judgment, answered the substantial questions of law in favor of the assessee. The ITAT's findings against the assessee were quashed.
The High Court quashed the ITAT's order and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to adjudicate the issue of whether the notice issued under Section 143(2) was barred by limitation and contrary to the Act.
The High Court quashed the ITAT's order and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is to adjudicate the issue of whether the notice under Section 143(2) was barred by limitation and contrary to the Act.
The High Court disposed of the appeal. Liberty was granted to the revenue to revive the appeal if the matter falls within the exceptions of the CBDT circular.
The High Court held that the petitioner admitted the address on the legal notice and did not dispute the signatures on the cheques or the promissory note. Therefore, the findings of the lower courts were not perverse, and there was no ground to interfere.
The High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in its findings. The substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
The High Court held that BIAL does not satisfy the conditions of Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act. The court answered the substantial questions of law against the revenue and in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that BIAL is not a statutory body for the purposes of Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act. The court answered the substantial questions of law against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
The High Court held that Bengaluru International Airport Limited (BIAL) is a statutory body and that cargo handling services constitute infrastructure development. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4).
The High Court held that Bengaluru International Airport Limited (BIAL) is a statutory body and that cargo handling services constitute infrastructure development. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4).
The High Court held that the trial court wrongly acquitted the accused by failing to properly appreciate the evidence and the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused failed to rebut the presumption of consideration.
The High Court allowed the prayer of the appellant's counsel for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court granted the appellant liberty to file a fresh appeal in the future if the need arises. The counsel for the respondents was granted four weeks to file a memo of appearance.
The High Court held that the original judgment did not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the Court found no grounds to interfere with its previous decision in the exercise of its review jurisdiction.
The High Court held that the findings of the lower authorities regarding the non-existence of agricultural activity and possession of land were pure findings of fact based on evidence. These findings were not shown to be perverse, and therefore, the court could not interfere.
The High Court allowed the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court granted the appellant liberty to file a fresh appeal in the future if the need arises. No decision was made on the merits of the case, as the appeal was withdrawn by the appellant.
The High Court allowed the appellant's prayer for withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the court.
The High Court allowed the appellant's prayer for withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the court.
The High Court of Karnataka, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court granted the appellant liberty to file a fresh appeal if the need arises in the future. No decision was made on the merits of the case, as the appeal was disposed of solely on the appellant's request for withdrawal. The specific findings of the ITAT or the reasoning behind the appellant's decision to withdraw are not detailed in this judgment.
The learned counsel for the appellant made a prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The High Court allowed this prayer. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court granted the appellant liberty to file a fresh appeal if the need arises in the future. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law that were intended to be formulated.
The High Court allowed the prayer of the appellant's learned counsel for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court also granted liberty to the appellant to file a fresh appeal if the need arises in the future. 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 procedural grounds.
The High Court of Karnataka, considering the memo filed by the appellant's counsel seeking to withdraw the appeal with liberty to revive it, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court granted the assessee the 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 formulated, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn, with the specified liberty.
The tribunal held that inputs used for the operation and maintenance of an SEZ unit are eligible for refund, not just those used in manufacturing. The definition of 'inputs' in the Act has a wider meaning, encompassing any use in business.
The High Court held that the assessee is eligible for depreciation on assets purchased through income application and can carry forward deficits. These decisions were based on previous judgments by the Supreme Court and the High Court itself.
The Tribunal erred in deducting income tax and not adequately considering future prospects. The court re-assessed compensation, increasing the award for loss of dependency, consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses.
The High Court held that the Tribunal was correct in its findings. The substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue based on previous Supreme Court and High Court judgments.
The High Court found that the reasons for reopening were communicated to the assessee on 24.12.2018 and 24.11.2018, respectively, based on acknowledgments produced by the revenue. The court also noted that the assessee's request for reasons was made belatedly on 21.12.2018, close to the deadline for passing the order.
The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, with certain modifications. Specific provisions were struck down or amended to ensure fairness and clarity in proceedings.
The High Court allowed the memo for withdrawal of the appeal filed by M/s Soplar (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal's order dated October 13, 2017, in IT(TP) A No.65/Bang/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13, was not decided on its merits. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The High Court granted the appellant liberty to file an appeal in the future if the need arises. No specific findings or reasoning on the substantive issues of the appeal were recorded as the appeal was withdrawn.
The High Court of Karnataka considered a memo filed by the assessee's counsel seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The memo was taken on record. For the reasons assigned in the memo, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the substantial questions of law or the merits of the ITAT's order. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the trial court's discretion in refusing specific performance was justified. However, the rate of interest awarded by the trial court was modified to 14% per annum from the date of the substantial payment.
The High Court disposed of the appeal. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the appeal if the matter falls within the exceptions mentioned in the CBDT circular.
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 the occasion arises.
The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, with certain modifications. Specific sections were amended to clarify procedures and evidence admissibility.
The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, with certain modifications. Specific sections were amended to clarify procedures and evidence admissibility.
The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, with certain modifications. Specific sections were amended to clarify procedures and evidence admissibility.
The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, with certain modifications. Specific sections were amended to clarify procedures and evidence admissibility.
The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, with certain modifications. Specific sections were amended to clarify procedures and evidence admissibility.
The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, with certain modifications. Specific sections were amended to clarify procedures and evidence admissibility.
The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, with certain modifications. Specific sections were amended to clarify procedures and evidence admissibility.
The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, with certain modifications. Specific sections were amended to clarify procedures and evidence admissibility.
The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, with certain modifications. Specific sections were amended to clarify procedures and evidence admissibility.