Loading High Court cases…
1,346 orders · Page 26 of 27
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 a fairer process.
The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, with certain modifications. Several proceedings were quashed or abated, while others were dismissed or allowed in part.
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 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 procedural clarity.
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 a fairer process.
The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, but made certain modifications to its provisions. Some proceedings were quashed, while others were dismissed or abated.
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. Several proceedings were quashed or abated, while others were dismissed or allowed to continue with specific directions.
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 a more balanced approach to civil and criminal proceedings.
The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, with certain modifications. Several petitions were allowed, some dismissed, and others were disposed of with specific directions.
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 provisions were struck down or amended to ensure fairness and procedural clarity.
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. Several petitions were allowed, some dismissed, and others were disposed of with specific directions.
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 due process.
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 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 provisions were struck down or amended to ensure a fairer process.
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 a more balanced approach to criminal and civil proceedings.
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 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 and sub-sections were struck down or amended to ensure a more balanced approach to civil and criminal proceedings.
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 a fairer process.
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 provisions were struck down or amended to ensure a fairer process.
The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, with certain modifications. Several proceedings were quashed or abated, while others were dismissed or allowed to continue with specific directions.
The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, with certain modifications to specific sections. The court also directed the constitution of additional benches of the Special Courts.
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. Several proceedings were quashed or abated, while others were dismissed or allowed to continue with specific directions.
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 a fairer process.
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 evidentiary rules.
The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011. However, it made certain modifications to specific sections of the Act to ensure fairness and procedural correctness.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer failed to record the mandatory satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim before disallowing expenditure under Section 14A. The disallowance was made without determining the actual expenditure incurred.
The High Court allowed the memo for withdrawal of the income tax appeal. The court granted liberty to the appellant to file a fresh appeal in the future, should the need arise. The reasoning for allowing the withdrawal is not elaborated upon, other than the acceptance of the appellant's request. Consequently, the appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was disposed of as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the original appeal.
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 High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the assessee liberty to revive the appeal if occasion so arises. No decision was made on the substantial questions of law or the merits of the case.
The High Court held that deductions made for income tax purposes should not be considered when calculating compensation. It enhanced the compensation by reassessing the deceased's annual income and applying relevant multipliers and heads of compensation.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant had filed a Memo for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the High Court allowed the Memo for withdrawal and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the case was made. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to file a fresh appeal in the future if the need arose. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court quashed the ITAT's order regarding the dismissal of the revenue's appeal on the Section 80JJAA claim. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on the Section 80JJAA claim.
The High Court held that the substantial question of law framed in the appeal was answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee, following a previous decision of the court.
The High Court quashed the ITAT's order and directed it to re-examine the assessee's claim for fringe benefits at the concessional rate. The court found that the assessee had not satisfied the ingredients of Section 115WC(2)(d) of the Act.
The High Court quashed the ITAT's order in part, specifically concerning the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal on the Section 80JJAA claim. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claims for stamp duty expenditure, Section 10A deduction, and depreciation on media resource boards. However, the High Court remanded the issue of Section 80JJAA deduction back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
The High Court held that the lower courts erred in convicting the petitioner as the complainant failed to prove his financial capacity to lend the amount. The petitioner's defense of the cheque being misused as security was not adequately considered.
The High Court held that the substantial question of law regarding the supply of reasons for reassessment was already decided by the Supreme Court against the revenue. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
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.