Karnataka High Court Judgments — 2021

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 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 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 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 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 High Court held that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of missing annexures. It provided an opportunity to the assessee to furnish the required documents to establish the nexus for the deduction.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient material evidence to support the claim of higher expenses for lower grade iron ore. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's factual findings and dismissed the appeal.

The High Court held that no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted as no expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income. For the merged bank's asset realization, the matter was remanded to the AO to determine if the loss was disallowed in the year of merger. Depreciation on leased assets was allowed as a finding of fact by the Tribunal.

The High Court noted that the appeal had become academic due to subsequent developments. The court disposed of the appeal as academic with liberty to revive if necessary.

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeals were squarely covered by a ruling of the Apex Court. The Revenue could not dispute this position.

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 held that the payment of remuneration to trustees was justified by services rendered and that surplus generation in an educational trust does not automatically amount to commercialization. The court found no violation of Section 13(1)(c) and upheld the ITAT's decision.

The High Court noted that the complainant's representation had been decided by an endorsement dated 17.09.2021. Consequently, the court decided not to proceed further with the contempt proceedings.

The tribunal held that the Assistant Commissioner failed to consider the average income for five consecutive years as required by the explanation to Section 79A of the KLR Act. The impugned order was set aside.

The High Court held that the payment of remuneration to trustees was justified by services rendered and that surplus generation in an educational trust does not automatically amount to commercialization. The court found no violation of Section 13(1)(c) and upheld the ITAT's decision.

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeals were squarely covered by a ruling of the Apex Court. The Revenue could not dispute this position.

The High Court noted that the reassessment order rendered the appeal academic as the original assessment order no longer survived. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The tribunal's finding that the Assessing Officer could issue two notices and that the time limit should be reckoned from the later date was held to be perverse. The court found that the assessment was completed beyond the prescribed limitation period of nine months from the date of service of the first notice.

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 Tribunal noted that the respondent-assessee had filed a memo stating that the transfer pricing adjustment, which is the subject matter of the appeal, has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeal no longer survives for consideration. The learned counsel for the Revenue did not dispute this submission. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appeal has rendered infructuous. The operative direction was that the appeal stands dismissed as having rendered infructuous, with liberty granted to the Revenue to revive the appeal if necessary. No specific finding was made on the merits of the transfer pricing adjustment itself.

The High Court held that the notice issued under Section 158BC was without jurisdiction as the transfer order was set aside before its issuance. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings were rendered void ab initio.

The High Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the petitioner's contentions. Instead, it directed the first appellate authority to dispose of the pending appeal expeditiously, within four months.

The High Court held that the notice issued under Section 158BC was without jurisdiction as the transfer order was set aside before the notice was issued. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings were rendered void ab initio.

The High Court allowed both petitions, setting aside the rejection order. The department agreed to release the seized jewellery upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee equivalent to its value.

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

The High Court held that the notice issued under Section 158BC was without jurisdiction as the transfer order was set aside before its issuance. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings were rendered void ab initio.

The High Court held that the notice issued under Section 158BC was without jurisdiction as the transfer order was set aside before its issuance. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings were rendered void ab initio.

The High Court held that the notice issued under Section 158BC was without jurisdiction as the transfer order was set aside before its issuance. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings were rendered void ab initio.

The High Court held that the notice issued under Section 158BC was without jurisdiction as the transfer order was set aside before its issuance. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings were rendered void ab initio.

The High Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the case. It directed the appellate authority to dispose of the pending appeal expeditiously, within four months, while considering the petitioner's contentions and relevant Apex Court judgments.

The Tribunal rightly rejected the appeal as the HUF members had no independent source of income and the assessee admitted the facts before the authorities. The High Court found no merit in considering purely fact-related issues in an appeal under Section 260A.

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal are squarely covered by the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax and another. Since the revenue's counsel could not dispute this position, the substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeal was disposed of accordingly. The specific substantial questions of law were not detailed in the judgment, but their resolution was based on the cited Supreme Court precedent. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court granted the permission sought by the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The appellant was granted liberty to revive the appeal in case the dispute is not settled under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. No decision was made on the merits of the original dispute. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to revive.

The High Court held that while the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the deceased husband abated, the abetment charges under Section 109 of the IPC against the wife could still be tried. However, the Special Court trying the PC Act cases lacked jurisdiction to try the IPC abetment offence.

The High Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the petitioners' contentions. It directed the First Appellate Authority to dispose of the pending appeals within four months, considering the Apex Court judgments cited by the petitioners.

The High Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the petitioners' contentions. It directed the First Appellate Authority to dispose of the pending appeals within four months, considering the Apex Court judgments cited by the petitioners.

The High Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the petitioners' contentions. It directed the First Appellate Authority to dispose of the pending appeals within four months, considering the Apex Court judgments cited by the petitioners.

The High Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the petitioners' contentions. It directed the First Appellate Authority to dispose of the pending appeals within four months, considering the Apex Court judgments cited by the petitioners.

The High Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the petitioners' contentions. It directed the First Appellate Authority to dispose of the pending appeals within four months, considering the Apex Court judgments cited by the petitioners.

The High Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the petitioners' contentions. It directed the First Appellate Authority to dispose of the pending appeals within four months, considering the Apex Court judgments cited by the petitioners.

The High Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the petitioners' contentions. It directed the First Appellate Authority to dispose of the pending appeals within four months, considering the Apex Court judgments cited by the petitioners.

The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is to re-examine the expatriate costs deduction in light of a previous ruling concerning contractual liability for employee income tax.

The High Court held that the notices issued for penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271 were defective as they did not specifically state the grounds for imposing penalty, thus violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal's order confirming the penalty was set aside.

The Court held that the amendments to Section 9 of the Income Tax Act by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021, meant the reopening of assessment was not sustainable. Consequently, the notices were set aside.

The Court held that the amendments to Section 9 of the Income Tax Act by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021, meant the reopening of assessment was not sustainable. Consequently, the notices were set aside.

The High Court acknowledged that the substantial questions of law were covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vs. CIT. The questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee.

The Court held that the amendments to Section 9 of the Income Tax Act by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021, meant the reopening of assessment was not sustainable. Consequently, the notices were set aside.

The High Court acknowledged that the substantial questions of law were covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vs. CIT. The questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee.

The High Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the petitioners' contentions. It directed the First Appellate Authority to dispose of the pending appeals within four months, considering the Apex Court judgments cited by the petitioners.

The High Court considered the memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellant (assessee) seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. The memo was placed on record. Consequently, the High Court ordered that the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the substantive issues that might have been raised in the appeal, as the appeal itself was withdrawn by the appellant.