Loading High Court cases…
527 orders · Page 7 of 11
The High Court held that assisting banking institutions with appraisal programs and productivity studies falls within the broad definition of education. The court also noted that the department had not granted permission to delete certain objects from the MoA.
The High Court held that securities held under 'held to maturity' should be treated as stock-in-trade. It also held that expenses incurred in connection with the sale of shares had a nexus with the transfer and were permissible deductions.
The High Court held that the order passed under Section 148A(d) was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind. The revenue failed to provide valid reasons for rejecting the assessee's reply and concluding that income had escaped assessment.
The High Court held that questions 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 were to be answered in favor of the assessee. Questions 4 and 7 were remanded to the Assessing Officer for further examination.
The High Court held that reopening the assessment under Section 147 was invalid as Section 153C should have been followed. The Court also found that the addition for unexplained investments was unsustainable due to lack of corroborating evidence and inconsistent use of the seized material.
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the Writ Petition for non-prosecution. The Court noted that despite being granted sufficient time, the petitioner had not complied with the office objections. Furthermore, on the day the matter was listed for orders, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The Court inferred from this absence and non-compliance that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the Writ Petition. Therefore, the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds, without any adjudication on the merits of the challenge to the letter dated December 18, 2019. No specific issue regarding the income tax assessment itself was decided.
The High Court held that it cannot undertake the exercise of verifying the calculation of assets and income at this stage, as it is premature. However, it found merit in the petitioner's argument that the trial court's observation regarding the burden of proof being on the accused cannot be countenanced in law.
The High Court quashed the earlier resolution allotting the disputed land, noting that BBMP had not established its title. The court also directed BBMP to consider the petitioners' representations regarding the land.
The High Court quashed the earlier resolution allotting the disputed land, noting that BBMP had not established its title. The court also directed BBMP to consider the petitioners' representations regarding the land.
The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable based on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that if there is no failure on the part of the assessee to make a true and correct disclosure, the Revenue cannot pursue further judicial scrutiny. The appeal was dismissed based on this principle.
The High Court held that the writ petition was premature as the petitioner had an alternate statutory remedy under FEMA. The Court directed the Competent Authority to hear the matter and pass an order expeditiously, within 60 days.
The High Court considered the memo filed by the appellant seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. Upon granting the leave, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn in terms of the memo. Consequently, an interlocutory application (I.A.No.2/2021) filed in the appeal was also disposed of as it did not survive. The Court did not delve into the merits of the substantial questions of law that were intended to be raised, as the appeal was withdrawn by the appellant. No costs were awarded.
The High Court held that the averments in the complaint were sufficient to bring the directors within the ambit of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, making them vicariously liable. The court found no grounds to interfere with the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
The Tribunal held that the full value of consideration for the sale of shares should be the agreed price minus the tax component. However, since the tax was a company liability and the appellant was one of multiple sellers, she was only entitled to a deduction of 50% of the tax component proportionate to her shareholding.
The court held that the GST registration could not be completed due to a defect in the PAN card. The petitioner was advised to rectify their PAN card through the designated channels.
The High Court upheld the trial court's acquittal of the accused. The court found that the complainant failed to prove his financial capacity to lend the amount and did not adequately plead the nature and date of the transaction.
The High Court found that the ITAT's order was not sustainable and directed a re-look into the matter. The court noted that the developers had the power to alienate the property and had entered upon it.
The High Court held that the contract's dominant purpose was the supply of rolling stock, with the service component being negligible. Therefore, the work was ancillary to the supply and did not constitute professional or technical services requiring TDS.
The Tribunal held that the transaction for the purchase of windmills was indeed completed in March 2006, making the assessee eligible for depreciation. It also ruled that the acquired undertaking was a 'going concern' as per the demerger scheme approved by the High Court, allowing the set-off of brought forward losses.
The High Court held that the contract's dominant purpose was the supply of rolling stock, with the service component being negligible. Therefore, the work was ancillary to the supply and did not constitute professional or technical services requiring TDS.
The High Court held that the ITAT erred in allowing the revenue's appeals for statistical purposes without considering the merits, especially when the assessee had received relief from the CIT(Appeals). The matter was remitted back to the ITAT for fresh disposal.
The High Court held that securities held under 'held to maturity' are capital assets, software expenses are revenue in nature, ESOP liabilities are ascertained, contingent losses are allowable if written off, broken period interest is allowable on a mixed accounting basis, and diminution in investment value is deductible. The court also ruled that banking companies are exempt from MAT provisions, operational losses are revenue expenditure, mark-to-market losses are deductible, and insurance premiums on housing loans are revenue expenditure.
The High Court found that the order sheet indicated no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner. Therefore, the order of forfeiture was set aside.
The High Court held that securities held under 'held to maturity' are capital assets, software expenses are revenue in nature, ESOP liabilities are ascertained, contingent losses are allowable if written off, broken period interest is allowable on a mixed accounting basis, and diminution in investment value is deductible. The court also ruled that banking companies are exempt from MAT provisions, operational losses are revenue expenditure, mark-to-market losses are deductible, and insurance premiums on housing loans are revenue expenditure.
The High Court held that securities held under 'held to maturity' are capital assets, software expenses are revenue in nature, ESOP liabilities are ascertained, contingent losses are allowable if written off, broken period interest is allowable on a mixed accounting basis, and diminution in investment value is deductible. The court also ruled that banking companies are exempt from MAT provisions, operational losses are revenue expenditure, mark-to-market losses are deductible, and insurance premiums on housing loans are revenue expenditure.
The tribunal held that the notice for reopening the assessment was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period. The corrigendum was considered a fresh notice, making it time-barred, and the initial notice was also found to be issued after the due date.
The High Court found no infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment. Therefore, the Court held that interference in review jurisdiction was not warranted.
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 tribunal set aside the assessment order, acknowledging the petitioner's age, non-receipt of postal notices, and difficulty with electronic verification. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Authority for reconsideration.
The Court took on record the memo filed by the petitioner seeking to withdraw the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court, in view of the Circular dated 24.06.2019 and the tax effect being less than Rs. One Crore, dismissed the appeal.
The High Court held that the findings of fact recorded by the Assessing Officer, First Appellate Authority, and ITAT against the assessee were concurrent. A previous judgment by the same court on related appeals had attained finality, confirming the transaction.
The High Court noted that the tax effect was less than Rupees one crore. Following its previous practice in similar cases and in view of the relevant circular, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the petitioner failed to establish the applicability of the Government of India's circular to State Government departments. The court also noted that the petitioner had not submitted a tender and the tenders had already been opened.
The High Court upheld the lower court's decision to reject the application for document production. The Court found that the burden of proof was on the defendants to establish their absolute ownership, and the existing evidence was sufficient for the trial.
The High Court disposed of the appeal by agreeing to an observation that fresh proceedings under Section 201 would be considered wholly uninfluenced by the Tribunal's previous observations. The respondents had no objection to this arrangement.
The High Court, by agreement of the parties and for the reasons recorded in a related appeal (ITA No.186/2022), dismissed the present appeals. No costs were awarded.
The Tribunal erred in allowing the Revenue's appeal. The High Court held that the Revenue's consistent acceptance of deduction on an 'installed capacity' basis for subsequent years, while applying a 'profit generation' basis for the current year, was unsustainable.
The High Court, by agreement of the parties and for the reasons recorded in a related appeal (ITA No.186/2022), dismissed the present appeals. No costs were awarded.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, finding that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction was not properly recorded. The court also noted the undesirability of litigation between government-owned entities and directed the concerned ministries to minimize such disputes.
The High Court noted that questions 1-3 were remitted and question 3 was already decided against the Revenue. Regarding question 4, the Assessing Officer allowed a deduction of Rs. 50,000 under Section 14A, which was not disputed.
The High Court granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Court set aside the preliminary order on jurisdiction and the subsequent assessment orders. The matter was remanded back to the assessing officer to reconsider the case on merits.
The High Court set aside the impugned assessment order and demand notice. The matter was remanded back to the respondent to provide the petitioner an opportunity to present their case, subject to a 10% deposit of the demanded amount.
The respondents stated that the search and seizure was conducted legally and would be completed on the same day. Based on this submission, the court found the petition to be infructuous.
The High Court held that the assessee was not accorded a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the authorities.
The High Court granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the court.