Loading High Court cases…
1,346 orders · Page 27 of 27
The High Court held that Section 14A of the Act does not apply if no exempt income has accrued to the assessee. It also held that adjustments for differences in accounting policies, like depreciation, are permissible under Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules for comparability analysis.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were covered by previous decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court itself. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue had no merit.
The High Court held that the substantial question of law was already decided in favour of the assessee in a previous similar case. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The High Court held that the substantial question of law was already decided in favor of the assessee in a previous case. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal correctly found that the Transfer Pricing Officer should not have adjusted the mark-up on costs for profitable non-SKF contracts. Findings of fact by the Tribunal can only be challenged if they are perverse, which was not demonstrated.
The High Court found that the issuance of the cheque and the signature were not disputed, and the complainant had discharged the initial burden. The accused's evidence was insufficient to rebut the presumption, and the contention of a time-barred debt was not accepted.
The High Court of Karnataka, upon considering the memo filed by the assessee's counsel, allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The judgment also granted liberty to the assessee to revive the appeal if occasion arises in the future. 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 learned counsel for the assessee had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. This memo was taken on record. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law that would have otherwise been formulated and decided. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the appeal due to the withdrawal request.
The High Court of Karnataka considered the memo filed by the learned counsel for the assessee seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The memo was taken on record. 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 raised. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the appeal due to its withdrawal by the appellant.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner was justified in invoking Section 263 and that the deduction under Section 80HHC should be allowed after deducting the profit allowed under Section 80IB. The High Court disagreed, finding that the Assessing Officer's view was plausible and that the invocation of Section 263 was not justified.
The High Court held that the ITAT's order was cryptic and suffered from non-application of mind as it failed to consider the material placed by the assessee and its own previous order for AY 2006-07. The matter was remitted to the tribunal for fresh consideration.
The High Court held that Section 10B is a deduction provision, not an exemption provision, and the restriction in Section 10B(6) does not apply post-April 1, 2001. It also found Section 14A inapplicable as there was no exempt income.
The High Court quashed the ITAT's finding that the assessee was not entitled to claim deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act. The court's decision was based on reasons provided in a related appeal.
The High Court found that the ITAT's order was passed without considering Section 150 read with Section 153 and Explanation 2 to Section 153 of the Act. The Court answered the additional substantial question of law in favour of the revenue.
The High Court considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee, who requested permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to contest a specific substantial question of law ('O') in subsequent years. The learned counsel for the revenue did not oppose this prayer. In light of the non-opposition from the revenue, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the assessee liberty to contest the substantial question of law 'O' in subsequent assessment years, as prayed. No decision was made on the merits of any substantial question of law.
The High Court held that the ITAT erred by not considering Section 150 read with Section 153 and Explanation 2 to Section 153 of the Act. Consequently, the ITAT's order was quashed.
The Tribunal erred in setting aside the reassessment order without considering Section 150 read with Section 153 and Explanation 2 to Section 153 of the Act. These sections empower the Assessing Authority to assess income in the hands of another person if it was excluded from the first person's total income.
The High Court of Karnataka considered the memo filed by the learned counsel for the assessee seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The memo was taken on record. Consequently, the High 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 sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 92A of the Income Tax Act are interlinked and must be read together. Since the revenue did not assail the ITAT's finding that sub-section (1) was not complied with, the provisions of Section 92A were not attracted.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal had allowed the deduction under Section 80IB(10) and accepted the assessee's 'Project Completion Method' for income recognition.
The High Court held that the assessee is eligible for proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) for compliant units. It also affirmed the use of the project completion method of accounting as per Accounting Standard 9.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. Instead, the learned counsel for the assessee filed a memo seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the appeal. The Court took the memo on record and, for the reasons assigned therein, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court granted liberty to the assessee to revive the appeal if occasion so arises. No decision was made on the merits of the ITAT's order.
The High Court noted that the appellant's counsel stated that the appellant had availed the benefit under the 'Vivad-se-Vishwas' Scheme and therefore did not wish to prosecute the appeal. A memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal was filed by the appellant's counsel and taken on record. Consequently, the High Court ordered the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law that were to be formulated.
The High Court held that substantial questions of law 1 and 2 were answered in favor of the assessee. Consequently, substantial question of law 3 did not arise for consideration.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the assessee had filed a memo 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 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 High Court noted that the learned counsel for the assessee had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The Court took this 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 if occasion so arises. No decision on the merits of the substantial questions of law was made, as the appeal was withdrawn.
The High Court noted that the assessee's counsel had filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. The 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 the occasion arises. No decision was made on the substantial questions of law or the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer or confirmed by the ITAT.
The Revenue, through its learned counsel, filed a memo seeking leave of the High Court to withdraw the appeal. The memo was taken on record. For the reasons stated in the memo, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the case was made. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court of Karnataka, after considering the memo filed by the assessee seeking to withdraw the appeal, has 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, as the appeal was disposed of on the procedural ground of withdrawal. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court noted that the assessee's counsel had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The memo was taken on record. 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 arose. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law or the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
The High Court took the memo filed by the assessee's counsel 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 the occasion arises. No decision was made on the merits of the case, as the appeal was withdrawn by the appellant.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the Revenue had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The Court took the aforesaid memo on record. For the reasons assigned in the memo, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law that the Revenue had sought to formulate and have decided. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court considered a memo filed by the assessee's counsel seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. For the reasons stated in the memo, the 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 that were intended to be formulated. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court agreed with the single judge's decision to set aside the order and remand the matter for reconsideration of the delay condonation application. However, it modified the remand direction to be to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Income-Tax Officer.
The High Court held that the ITAT was incorrect in its findings regarding the AO's independent inquiry. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the Revenue.
The High Court agreed with the single judge's decision to set aside the Commissioner's order and remand the matter for reconsideration. However, it modified the order to ensure the remand was to the correct authority.
The High Court of Karnataka considered a memo filed by the learned counsel for the assessee seeking leave 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 occasion so arises. No decision was made on the substantial questions of law or the merits of the ITAT's order.
The High Court of Karnataka took the memo filed by the assessee seeking leave to withdraw the appeal on record. 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 arises. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law or the ITAT's order.
The High Court modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in some cases, primarily by recalculating the loss of dependency based on income tax returns and adjusting amounts for loss of amenities and future prospects. The rate of interest was also scaled down from 8% to 6% per annum in most cases.
The High Court of Karnataka considered the memo filed by the assessee's counsel 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 occasion arose. No decision was made on the substantial questions of law or the merits of the ITAT's order, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.
The High Court directed the revenue to consider the application filed under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in an expeditious manner, within three months from the receipt of the judgment, and in accordance with the law.
The High Court of Karnataka considered a memo filed by the learned counsel for the assessee 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. 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 to be formulated.
The High Court directed the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to consider the application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act expeditiously and in accordance with law within three months.
The High Court agreed that the matter should be remanded for reconsideration of the delay condonation application. However, it modified the order to ensure the remand was to the correct authority, the Principal Commissioner.
The High Court agreed with the single judge's decision to set aside the Commissioner's order and remand the matter for reconsideration. However, it modified the order to ensure the remand was to the correct authority.
The High Court agreed that the Principal Commissioner's order rejecting the delay condonation application was incorrect. However, it modified the single judge's order by remanding the matter back to the Principal Commissioner (appellant No.1) for reconsideration, not to the Income-Tax Officer.