Karnataka High Court Judgments — 2021

The High Court allowed the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was granted with liberty to revive the appeal if the dispute is not settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

The Tribunal held that the complainant failed to prove the advancement of the loan and his financial capacity to lend Rs. 5 Lakhs. Consequently, the presumption under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not attracted, and the lower courts erred in convicting the accused.

The appellant filed a memo seeking to withdraw the appeal as academic, having opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The High Court accepted the memo and disposed of the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court held that the ITAT's decision to set aside the disallowances was correct, relying on its own previous judgments in similar cases involving the assessee and other banks. The court answered the admitted substantial questions of law in favor of the assessee.

The High Court held that Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act does not apply to banking companies, following its own previous rulings. The issue of depreciation on leased assets was also decided in favor of the assessee based on prior judgments.

The High Court held that the impugned notification was valid and that OCI cardholders, being 'aliens', could not claim admission to government and supernumerary seats without specific Central law granting such rights. The court also found that the examinations mentioned in the notification were consistent with the CET brochure.

The High Court held that the impugned notification was valid and that OCI cardholders, being 'aliens', could not claim admission to government and supernumerary seats without specific Central law granting such rights. The court also found that the examinations mentioned in the notification were consistent with the CET brochure.

The High Court held that the impugned notification was valid and that OCI cardholders, being 'aliens', could not claim admission to government and supernumerary seats without specific Central law granting such rights. The court also found that the examinations mentioned in the notification were consistent with the CET brochure.

The High Court held that the impugned notification was valid and that OCI cardholders, being 'aliens', could not claim admission to government and supernumerary seats without specific Central law granting such rights. The court also found that the examinations mentioned in the notification were consistent with the CET brochure.

The High Court held that the impugned notification was valid and that OCI cardholders, being 'aliens', could not claim admission to government and supernumerary seats without specific Central law granting such rights. The court also found that the examinations mentioned in the notification were consistent with the CET brochure.

The High Court held that the impugned notification was valid and that OCI cardholders, being 'aliens', could not claim admission to government and supernumerary seats without specific Central law granting such rights. The court also found that the examinations mentioned in the notification were consistent with the CET brochure.

The High Court held that the impugned notification was valid and that OCI cardholders, being 'aliens', could not claim admission to government and supernumerary seats without specific Central law granting such rights. The court also found that the examinations mentioned in the notification were consistent with the CET brochure.

The High Court held that the impugned notification was valid and that OCI cardholders, being 'aliens', could not claim admission to government and supernumerary seats without specific Central law granting such rights. The court also found that the examinations mentioned in the notification were consistent with the CET brochure.

The High Court held that the impugned notification was valid and that OCI cardholders, being 'aliens', could not claim admission to government and supernumerary seats without specific Central law granting such rights. The court also found that the examinations mentioned in the notification were consistent with the CET brochure.

The High Court held that the Assessing Officer had erroneously stated that no reply was filed, despite evidence to the contrary. This violation of natural justice warranted quashing the assessment order.

The tribunal held that the assessment order, computation sheet, demand notice, and penalty notice were violative of the principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.

The High Court found that both the Commissioner and the Tribunal took a hyper-technical approach in rejecting the appeal on grounds of delay. The court believed the petitioner had presented valid and sufficient grounds for condoning the delay.

The High Court held that the issue was squarely covered by a previous ruling in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee.

The High Court held that the Health Officer lacked the jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice for license cancellation. The power to cancel a license vests with the Zonal Commissioner under the BBMP Act.

The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to seek redressal of their grievance in accordance with law.

The Tribunal held that the belated filing of ITR-V does not invalidate the return for the purpose of carry forward of losses, especially considering subsequent CBDT circulars relaxing the time limits and the initial stage of e-filing.

The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This was based on the assessee's submission that they had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, for settlement of the disputed income for that year.

The High Court permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal for the Assessment Year 2002-03. This was based on the assessee's participation in the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.

The High Court permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as per the memo filed, in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

The High Court held that the General Manager's role was merely to communicate the decision of the Disciplinary Authority (Functional Director), thus not a jurisdictional issue. It also found no evidence that the inquiry was initiated based on anonymous complaints, as the charge sheet was based on the petitioner's own statement.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the memo filed by the appellant.

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. It held that the substantial questions of law raised were squarely covered by a previous co-ordinate bench decision in favor of the assessee.

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeals were squarely covered by a previous decision of a co-ordinate bench. Consequently, the court decided in favor of the assessee.

The High Court held that the petitioner, as Director, exceeded his powers by granting illegal permission for iron ore dust removal without proper procedure or an existing license. It found no protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. as the actions were not in good faith discharge of official duty.

The High Court held that the appeal is not maintainable before it. This decision was based on the submission by the appellants/Revenue that the tax effect in the present case is less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Court referred to CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dated August 8, 2019, which stipulates monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without addressing or answering the purported substantial questions of law that were intended to be formulated. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case or the ITAT's order.

The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra, having been decided in favour of the assessee by previous judgments of the same court. Therefore, the disallowance of interest on capital was incorrect.

The High Court held that the appeal is not maintainable before it. This decision was based on the CBDT Circular No.17/2019, dated 08.08.2019, which stipulates that appeals with a tax effect of less than Rs.1,00,00,000/- are not maintainable before the High Court. The appellants/Revenue themselves stated that the tax effect in the present case was below this threshold. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal without addressing or answering the purported substantial questions of law that the Revenue intended to raise. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

The tribunal quashed the impugned notice and survey sketch as they were conducted without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. A fresh survey was ordered to be conducted after hearing the petitioner.

The High Court held that the ITAT's decision was correct, relying on previous judgments of the same court. The court found no perversity or infirmity in the Tribunal's order regarding the treatment of amounts as export turnover.

The High Court, following its previous decisions, answered the substantial questions of law in favor of the assessee. The tribunal's decision to consider the amounts as part of export turnover was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the reasons cited by the DIT(E) were not sufficient to cancel the registration. The High Court agreed that while violations of Sections 13(1)(c) and 11(5) might lead to taxable income, they do not automatically warrant cancellation of registration.

The tribunal held that the assessment order and subsequent notices were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as no personal hearing was granted. The matter was remitted back for reconsideration.

The High Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the petitioner's contentions. It directed the First Appellate Authority to dispose of the pending appeal expeditiously, within four months.

The High Court set aside the order rejecting the condonation of delay application. It held that the delay should be condoned considering the peculiar facts, including the Assessing Officer's awareness of the exemption and the pending rectification application.

The Tribunal held that the petitioner failed to provide rebuttal evidence to disprove the complainant's case. The defense that the cheque was given for a loan to the complainant's brother was not substantiated and appeared to be an afterthought.

The High Court held that the distinction between employee/salaried doctors and in-house consultant doctors was apparent from the agreements. It found that the matter required reconsideration by the Assessing Officer in light of the incentive policy and returns filed by the consultant doctors.

The High Court allowed the review petition, restoring the original writ petition. This was done to enable the petitioner to avail the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, considering the peculiar facts and the interest of justice.

The High Court allowed the review petition, restoring the original writ petition. This was done to enable the petitioner to avail the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, considering the peculiar facts and the interest of justice.

The High Court took note of the memo filed by the petitioner seeking to withdraw the writ petition. The petitioner explicitly reserved the liberty to claim the benefit under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Considering the memo and the submission made, and subject to an undertaking and observations made in a related matter (R.P.No.185/2021), the High Court dismissed the present writ petition. The judgment does not provide any findings on the merits of the assessment order itself, as the petition was withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the annual letting value should be determined considering all surrounding factors, and the interest-free security deposit was a device to circumvent tax liability. The court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's order.

The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) beyond the period of limitation is a jurisdictional defect and not a curable procedural irregularity. Section 292BB of the Act does not save a notice issued beyond the prescribed time limit.

The High Court found that the denial was based on hyper-technicalities and that the revised return filed by the assessee actually showed the claim for deduction. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that as long as the housing projects are approved by the local authority and are on a plot of land with a minimum area of one acre, the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80IB(10), irrespective of the number of projects on that plot.

The High Court held that technical know-how is distinct from goodwill and its sale does not attract capital gains tax under Section 45. The non-competition fee was also held not to be taxable as revenue receipt. Interest under Section 220(2) was to be recomputed without charging interest on interest.

The High Court noted the Revenue's submission that the Tribunal had dismissed both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objections. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal without answering the substantial question of law.