Loading High Court cases…
527 orders · Page 3 of 11
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned government order dated 06.06.2017. It directed the state government not to transfer or promote existing staff from the Department of Health and Family Welfare to medical colleges.
The High Court held that the assessment order and penalty notices were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner's reply was not considered. The court set aside the impugned orders.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned government order dated 06.06.2017. It directed the state government not to transfer or promote existing staff from the Department of Health and Family Welfare to medical colleges.
The High Court held that the assessment order was passed without providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, violating principles of natural justice. The court set aside the impugned order and notices.
The High Court found that the ITAT dismissed the appeal cryptically without proper consideration of the documentary evidence produced by the assessee. The court decided that the matter requires fresh consideration at the hands of the Assessing Officer.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned government order dated 06.06.2017. It directed the state government not to transfer or promote existing staff from the Department of Health and Family Welfare to medical colleges.
The court held that the petitioner's explanation for the 25-year delay in filing the writ petition lacked credibility. The court also noted that the petitioner's averments in this petition conflicted with those made in a previous petition filed before the Assistant Commissioner.
The High Court held that the Trial Court correctly established the landlord-tenant relationship and ordered eviction. It also noted that the petitioner's counsel did not cross-examine the plaintiff's witness or lead evidence, and the petitioner's absence of explanation for not appearing before the Trial Court was a significant factor.
The High Court granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that mere ascertainment of the amount recoverable through additional levies towards RCHW dues does not constitute income. The High Court agreed, stating that tax is not payable on amounts merely accruing in an assessee's account without crystallization of the right to receive.
The Tribunal was correct in setting aside the reassessment order. The AO's reasons for reopening did not allege any non-disclosure by the assessee during the original assessment, making the reassessment invalid.
The High Court found that the Assessing Officer needed to re-examine whether the taxes on the service tax component, which was not actually paid during the respective previous years, had been paid. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
The High Court noted that the Revenue did not dispute the assessee's submission that the questions of law were covered by prior judgments. Therefore, the appeal was not considered to merit further consideration.
The High Court held that if a notice under Section 148 is issued after four years, the AO must record reasons stating the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. Since the AO did not allege such failure, the ITAT's order was upheld.
The High Court noted that the ITAT had set aside the assessment orders and that the related company had settled the undisclosed income. Therefore, nothing survived in the appeals.
The High Court noted that the ITAT had set aside the assessment orders and that the related company had settled the undisclosed income. Therefore, nothing survived in the appeals.
The High Court held that if a notice under Section 148 is issued after four years, the AO must record reasons stating the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. Since the AO did not allege such failure, the ITAT's order was upheld.
The High Court noted that the ITAT had set aside the assessment orders and that the related company had settled the undisclosed income. Therefore, nothing survived in the appeals.
The High Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directed the respondent appellate authorities to dispose of the pending appeal expeditiously. The court acknowledged the undisputed fact that the appeal had not yet been decided.
The High Court set aside the impugned assessment order and demand notice. The matter was remitted back to the respondents to proceed from the stage of the show cause notice, allowing the petitioner to file a reply and receive a personal hearing.
The High Court set aside the penalty order and remitted the matter back to the assessing officer. The petitioner was allowed to submit their response to the notices, and the officer was directed to reconsider the case after providing a personal hearing.
The High Court held that several questions of law were decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, based on a prior ruling. Other questions were kept open, and parties were to be governed by the outcome of a pending Supreme Court case.
The High Court held that questions 1-12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 were covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Questions 13, 16, and 17 were kept open, and parties were to be governed by the outcome of a pending Supreme Court case.
The High Court found it premature to consider the appeal as it might prejudge the issue. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, allowing both parties to present their contentions before the CIT(A).
The High Court held that questions 1-12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 were covered against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee. Questions 13, 16, and 17 were kept open, and parties were to be governed by the outcome of a pending Supreme Court case.
The High Court considered the memo filed by the learned advocate for the appellants seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. Leave was granted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The High Court also noted that in view of the disposal of the appeal, an interlocutory application (I.A.No.1/2022) did not merit consideration and was disposed of accordingly. No costs were awarded. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the original dispute or any substantial questions of law that might have been formulated.
The High Court found that the assessment order was passed in violation of natural justice principles as the petitioner's response and documents were not considered. The court decided to set aside the order and remit the matter back for reconsideration.
The High Court set aside the assessment order and recovery notice. The matter was remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration, allowing the petitioner to submit their reply and supporting documents.
The High Court set aside the assessment order and recovery notice. The matter was remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to submit their replies and supporting documents.
The High Court found that the assessment order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and without considering their submissions. Therefore, the impugned order and demand notice were set aside.
The High Court found that the ITAT had indeed not considered Ground No. 7. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the ITAT.
The High Court held that the ITAT erred in dismissing the miscellaneous petition and that a separate appeal was not required. It also found that the ITAT had not properly adjudicated certain grounds raised by the assessee.
The High Court held that since the assessment for AY 2008-09 was concluded by the Settlement Commission, the subsequent orders by the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and ITAT were unsustainable. The ITAT should have recognized the conclusion of the assessment and not proceeded to hear the matter on merits.
The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable before it as the impugned order was passed by the ITAT, New Delhi. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to the Revenue to approach the jurisdictional High Court.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer's denial of Section 10A benefits for subsequent years, after initially granting it and without disturbing the relief granted in the first year, was erroneous. The court relied on precedents emphasizing the need for uniformity and that relief granted in an initial year should not be withdrawn without valid grounds.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer's denial of Section 10A benefits for subsequent years, after initially granting it and without disturbing the relief granted in the first year, was erroneous. The court relied on precedents emphasizing the need for uniformity and that relief granted in an initial year should not be withdrawn without valid grounds.
The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was reserved to review the matter if the dispute is not settled under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
The High Court held that the ITAT erred in dismissing the miscellaneous petition and that a separate appeal was not required. It also found that the ITAT had not properly adjudicated certain grounds raised by the assessee.
The High Court held that since the assessee had not challenged the ITAT's finding on the RPT filter, the question did not arise for consideration. Therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The High Court found that the issue of whether the upfront premium constitutes income of the current year or should be amortized requires reconsideration. The court noted the conflicting views of the assessee, revenue, and the ITAT, as well as observations from the Comptroller & Auditor General.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer's denial of Section 10A benefits for subsequent years, after initially granting it and without disturbing the relief granted in the first year, was erroneous. The court relied on precedents emphasizing the need for uniformity and that relief granted in an initial year should not be withdrawn without valid grounds.
The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's denial of exemption. The High Court found no exception to the Assessing Officer's view that the trust's activities and financial dealings indicated it was not solely for educational purposes and that funds were being utilized for other purposes.
The High Court held that the AO had all the necessary information during the original assessment and there was no failure to disclose material facts. Therefore, the subsequent notice and order for reassessment were not justified.
The petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. The Court granted this permission, disposing of the petition as withdrawn.
The High Court noted that the ITAT had remitted the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal. Given the lack of clarity in the assessment order regarding the procedure followed and the applicability of Section 147 versus Section 153C, the High Court found that the matter required consideration by the ITAT.
The High Court held that a portion of the impugned notice was based on allegations already set aside by the ITAT. Therefore, the notice required re-examination by the authorities under the Black Money Act.
The High Court held that a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, being a jurisdictional notice, must be signed by the issuing authority to be valid. An unsigned notice is a serious defect that cannot be cured by the assessee's conduct or by provisions like Section 282A.