Loading High Court cases…
527 orders · Page 9 of 11
The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the relevant notifications as ultra vires the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Consequently, the impugned notice under Section 148 was quashed.
The High Court held that a change in law by a subsequent coordinate bench, without bringing it to the notice of the court during the original hearing, is not a valid ground for review. The court found no apparent error on the face of the record.
The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the impugned notifications as ultra vires the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The notice issued under Section 148 was quashed.
The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the relevant notifications as ultra vires the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Consequently, the impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed.
The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the relevant CBDT notifications as ultra vires the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Consequently, the impugned notice dated April 15, 2021, issued under Section 148 was quashed.
The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the relevant notifications as ultra vires. Consequently, the impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed.
The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the relevant CBDT notifications as ultra vires the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed.
The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the relevant notifications as ultra vires the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The impugned notices were quashed.
The High Court declared the notifications extending the time limit for issuing reassessment notices as ultra vires the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 was quashed.
The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the relevant CBDT notifications as ultra vires the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the 2020 Act. Consequently, the impugned re-assessment notice dated 16.04.2021 was quashed.
The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the impugned notifications as ultra vires the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the 2020 Act. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 was quashed.
The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the CBDT notifications as ultra vires the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The impugned notices were quashed.
The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, as ultra vires the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The impugned notice issued under Section 148 was also quashed.
The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 as ultra vires. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 30.06.2021 issued under Section 148 was quashed.
The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the CBDT notifications as ultra vires the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the 2020 Act. Consequently, the impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed.
The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the impugned CBDT notifications as ultra vires the Income Tax Act and the Taxation and Other Laws Act. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 was quashed.
The High Court held that disallowance under Section 14A pertains to normal computation of income and cannot be read into Section 115JB for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) computation. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, and the miscellaneous petition was considered misconstrued.
The Court held that the petitioner was not granted a real opportunity to be heard before the penalty order was passed. Therefore, the penalty order and demand notice were quashed, and the proceedings were restored for reconsideration.
The High Court held that even if a sale is void under Section 4 of the Act, an application for restoration under Section 5 must be filed within a reasonable period. The inordinate delay of 17 years made the application not maintainable.
The Court held that the petitioner must approach the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for relief concerning the tax credit issue under Section 205. The petitioner was also granted liberty to represent for action against the deductor under Section 276B.
The High Court held that the appellate tribunal should not be impeded from considering the petitioners' grounds regarding the tax rate, even though the DRP had not explicitly decided this issue.
The High Court held that the assessee should not suffer due to the delay in adjudicating the application filed before the CBDT. The circular imposing a time limit should not be applied retrospectively to an application filed when no such limit existed.
The High Court granted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file it before the appropriate court.
The High Court allowed the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file it before the appropriate court.
The High Court granted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to refile before the appropriate court.
The High Court granted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file it before the appropriate court.
The High Court granted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file it before the appropriate court.
The High Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence. It found that the accused's defense was not strong enough to rebut the presumption in favor of the complainant. However, the fine amount was reduced due to a lack of specific reasons for imposing double the cheque amount.
The Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Assessing Officer for the claim of interest, to be examined in accordance with law. For the refund of excess deposit, the petitioner was directed to approach the Appellate Authority.
The High Court held that if objections were filed with the DRP within the time limit, the impugned orders should be set aside. The DRP was directed to adjudicate on the petitioner's objections.
The Court noted the submission that a concession was granted allowing those who missed the initial deadline to file settlement applications later. Based on this, the Court found the petition to be unnecessary.
The High Court held that the Magistrate's order, which stopped proceedings without pronouncing a judgment of acquittal (as evidence was not fully recorded), amounted to a discharge. Therefore, the appeals filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. were not maintainable.
The Court disposed of the petitions, granting liberty to specific petitioners to submit fresh representations to the State Government regarding their grievances. The State Government was directed to consider these representations and pass appropriate orders within three months.
The High Court held that the revision authority's order was a non-speaking order and failed to examine the grounds of high-pitched assessment and genuine hardship. The court quashed the revision order and restored the matter for reconsideration.
The High Court found that the revision authority's order was non-speaking and failed to consider the petitioner's arguments regarding high-pitched assessment and genuine hardship. The court quashed the revision order and restored the matter for reconsideration.
The High Court held that the revision authority's order was non-speaking and did not examine the required criteria for waiver. Therefore, the order was quashed and the matter was restored for reconsideration.
The High Court considered the memo filed by the petitioner's advocate seeking leave to withdraw the writ petition. The Court noted that the memo requested the petition be dismissed as withdrawn in the interests of justice and equity. The memo was placed on record. Consequently, the High Court ordered that the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. No substantive issues regarding the AAR order were decided on merits.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer's opinion to initiate reassessment proceedings was based on further inquiry into the affairs of the donee organization and not merely a change of opinion. The court stated that the issue of whether concluded assessments can be reopened due to retrospective withdrawal of approval needs to be examined during reassessment.
The High Court held that the issue regarding Section 14A was covered by the Delhi High Court's decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and answered it in favor of the assessee. The issue regarding Section 10(23AAB) was also answered in favor of the assessee, as it was decided in the assessee's own case by this Court.
The High Court held that the issue regarding Section 14A was covered by the Delhi High Court's decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and answered it in favor of the assessee. The issue regarding Section 10(23AAB) was also answered in favor of the assessee, as it was decided in the assessee's own case by this Court.
The High Court held that the issue regarding Section 14A was covered by the Delhi High Court's decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and answered it in favor of the assessee. The issue regarding Section 10(23AAB) was also answered in favor of the assessee, as it was decided in the assessee's own case by this Court.
The High Court held that the issue regarding Section 14A was covered by the Delhi High Court's decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and answered it in favor of the assessee. The issue regarding Section 10(23AAB) was also answered in favor of the assessee, as it was decided in the assessee's own case by this Court.
The High Court held that the issue regarding Section 14A was covered by the Delhi High Court's decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and answered it in favor of the assessee. The issue regarding Section 10(23AAB) was also answered in favor of the assessee, as it was decided in the assessee's own case by this Court.
The Court held that the objections raised by the petitioner regarding the nomination papers were technical defects that did not substantially affect the election results. The Court found that the petition did not disclose a cause of action and was liable to be rejected.
The High Court agreed with the Revenue's submission that the previous order was based on a misinterpretation of the tax effect bar. Consequently, the review petition was allowed.
The tribunal held that interest cannot be charged on provisional assessments initiated before the amendment of Section 18(3) of the Customs Act in 2006, as the amendment is prospective. The High Court agreed, finding no substantial question of law.
The High Court took note of the memo filed by the appellant and granted permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the memo.
The High Court set aside the ITAT's order and restored the matter to the Tribunal's file. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to furnish the lease agreements, which are crucial for determining the nature of the transactions.
The Court found that the Will was duly executed and attested, with no objections raised. Therefore, the Will stands proved, and probate is granted to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.
The High Court set aside the ITAT's order and restored the matter to the Tribunal's file. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to furnish the lease agreements, which are crucial for determining the nature of the transactions.