Loading High Court cases…
527 orders · Page 5 of 11
The High Court dismissed the appeal. The decision was based on the submission of both parties that the questions of law in this appeal were identical to those in ITA No.329/2017. Consequently, for the reasons stated in the judgment for ITA No.329/2017, this appeal was also dismissed. No specific findings on any particular issue were recorded in this judgment, nor were any substantial questions of law formulated or decided. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal, with no costs.
The High Court held that gains arising from foreign exchange fluctuations on external commercial borrowings are on capital account and not taxable. It also upheld the ITAT's decision that the assessee is entitled to set off brought forward book losses under Section 115JB, as per the unambiguous language of the statute.
The High Court held that expenditure incurred to acquire rights under agreements like a Concession Agreement can be capitalized as intangible assets eligible for depreciation. However, the assessee must demonstrate the actual expenditure incurred.
The High Court held that the delay in passing the order after the conclusion of proceedings vitiated the order. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration.
The High Court quashed the impugned order and notice issued under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 respectively. The court directed that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) be treated as issued to the petitioner, allowing them to respond.
The Court noted that the respondent had processed the petitioner's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and issued Form-5. Consequently, the prayers related to the Vivad Se Vishwas Act were no longer surviving. The Court directed the refund of specified amounts.
The High Court held that the amendment was necessary for the complete adjudication of the dispute, even though the application was filed belatedly. The court found no fault with the Trial Court's decision to allow the amendments and recall the witness.
The High Court of Karnataka considered the memo filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking leave to withdraw the writ petition. The Court granted the permission to withdraw. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the assessment order or the grounds raised by the petitioner. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn.
The High Court of Karnataka noted that the learned advocate for the appellant had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The Court ordered that the memo be kept in record and consequently dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The judgment does not provide any findings on the merits of the original dispute before the Tribunal, as the appeal was withdrawn by the assessee. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the reason provided by the assessee for the delay, which was based on a hope that no penalty would be imposed after giving a consent letter under pressure, was not acceptable. Consequently, the court found no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal correctly held that advance locker rent is not taxable until the service is provided, following established precedents. Similarly, unrealized gains from forward contracts are not taxable as they are notional until the contract is concluded.
The High Court held that the invocation of Section 263 was erroneous as the Assessing Officer had considered the relevant facts and taken a plausible view. The Tribunal's affirmation of the revision order was set aside.
The High Court held that the questions of law raised in the appeal were covered by a previous decision in Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd. The amendment to Section 43B, which came into effect after the judgment in the cited case, did not warrant reconsideration of the appeal.
The High Court of Karnataka granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The court held that the appeal was not maintainable before it, citing the judgment in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - I, Chandigarh Vs. M/s ABC Papers Limited. The reasoning was based on the territorial jurisdiction for presenting appeals, considering the location of the assessment. The court granted liberty to the assessee to present the appeal before the High Court of Madras. No specific issue was decided on merits.
The High Court found that the issuance of notice to a non-existent firm and the lack of incriminating material for assessment under Section 153A were significant issues. The court also noted that the reliance on the Mahagun Realtors case by the revenue was not applicable on facts.
The High Court held that the recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer is a mandatory condition precedent for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. Since this was not demonstrated, the matter required re-examination.
The High Court found that the issuance of notice to a non-existent firm and the lack of incriminating material for assessment under Section 153A were significant issues. The court also noted that the reliance on the Mahagun Realtors case by the revenue was not applicable on facts.
The High Court found that the issuance of notice to a non-existent firm and the lack of incriminating material for assessment under Section 153A were significant issues. The court also noted that the reliance on the Mahagun Realtors case by the revenue was not applicable on facts.
The High Court held that the recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer is a mandatory condition precedent for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. Since this was not demonstrated, the matter required re-examination.
The High Court held that the recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer is a mandatory condition precedent for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. Since this was not demonstrated, the matter required re-examination.
The High Court dismissed the petition, agreeing with the respondents that the petitioner lacked locus standi due to its age and educational focus. The court also found the tender condition reasonable given the sensitive nature of dialysis services.
The High Court held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as they were based on a 'change of opinion' by the Assessing Officer. The court cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that reassessment requires tangible material and not merely a reconsideration of the same material.
The High Court held that the respondents erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay by misinterpreting the CBDT Circular No. 9/2015. The court also noted the petitioner's willingness to submit the required Audit Report in Form 3CB.
The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Department did not deserve acceptance. The court dismissed both appeals in accordance with Circular No. 17/2019, as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limits.
The tribunal held that the assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. The inability to submit a reply was due to bonafide reasons and unavoidable circumstances.
The High Court directed the concerned respondents in the Income Tax Department to consider the petitioner's representations and pass appropriate orders or take decisions expeditiously, within six weeks from the receipt of the order.
The High Court held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as they were based on a 'change of opinion' by the Assessing Officer. The court cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that reassessment requires tangible material and not merely a reconsideration of the same material.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. It granted the petitioner liberty to pursue all contentions, including additional ones, in the pending appeal before the Appellate Authority.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. It granted the petitioner liberty to pursue all contentions, including additional ones, in the pending appeal before the Appellate Authority.
The High Court found the impugned order to be unreasoned and cryptic. It noted that the respondent had not properly considered the petitioner's contentions or the decisions relied upon.
The tribunal held that once a delay in filing an appeal is condoned, it relates back to the date of filing, making subsequent recovery illegal. The petitioner is entitled to a refund of the amount recovered.
The High Court noted that the constitution of the ACB had been quashed by a previous judgment. Consequently, the petitioner withdrew the writ petition, with liberty to lodge a complaint under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act.
The Tribunal's reasoning that the distinction between voluntary and involuntary contributions is irrelevant for taxation purposes, as long as the contributions are treated as income and applied for charitable purposes, is accepted. The denial of exemption based on an assumption of capitation fee collection, without proper investigation, is not sustainable.
The Tribunal's reasoning that the distinction between voluntary and involuntary contributions is irrelevant for taxation purposes, as long as the contributions are treated as income and applied for charitable purposes, is accepted. The denial of exemption based on an assumption of capitation fee collection, without proper investigation, is not sustainable.
The Tribunal's reasoning that the distinction between voluntary and involuntary contributions is irrelevant for taxation purposes, as long as the contributions are treated as income and applied for charitable purposes, is accepted. The denial of exemption based on an assumption of capitation fee collection, without proper investigation, is not sustainable.
The High Court granted the leave sought by the appellant's counsel. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court also granted the appellant the liberty to seek revival of the appeal, should they be advised to do so in the future. No costs were awarded. The specific findings or reasoning of the ITAT or the High Court on any substantive legal or factual issues are not on record, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural basis.
The tribunal held that the authorities failed to act within the prescribed timeframes under both the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Consequently, the acquisition proceedings were declared to have lapsed.
The High Court held that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed due to the failure of the authorities to adhere to the prescribed timelines under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The beneficiary cannot claim that the acquisition should be upheld due to delays by the State.
The Revenue filed a memo seeking to withdraw the appeal. The Court granted leave to withdraw the appeal.
The High Court held that an assessment order passed without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is void ab initio. Therefore, the ITAT's order upholding the assessment was unsustainable in law.
The High Court noted that the learned Advocate for the Revenue had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. Leave was granted to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the case or the substantial questions of law was rendered. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court noted that the respondents were already considering the petitioner's grievances and consulting with relevant authorities. Without expressing an opinion on the merits, the court directed the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representations expeditiously.
The High Court of Karnataka, upon being presented with the appeal, noted that the learned Advocate for the Revenue had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. Leave to withdraw was granted, and consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case or the substantial questions of law that might have been formulated. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the appeal due to its withdrawal by the appellant.
The Revenue, through its counsel, filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The Court granted the leave requested in the memo. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case or the substantial question of law that the Revenue intended to raise. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The tribunal held that the respondents failed to consider the petitioner's request for an adjournment and personal hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside.
The tribunal held that the assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner's request for a hearing and consideration of documents were ignored. Therefore, the assessment order and consequential notices were quashed.
The High Court quashed the assessment and penalty orders, finding that the Assessing Authority had not complied with the ITAT's directions and had violated principles of natural justice by giving a very short period for reply. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Authority for fresh consideration.
The High Court directed the Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) to dispose of the pending matters concerning the petitioner for AY 2014-15 expeditiously. The court noted that the prayer against the original assessment order was not maintainable as the main appeal had already been disposed of.
The Tribunal, adopting a justice-oriented approach, set aside the impugned assessment and penalty orders. It granted the petitioner one final opportunity to present their defense and documents.
The High Court directed the Assessing Authority to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's application to keep the demand in abeyance. Until such orders are passed, the respondents were restrained from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner.