Loading High Court cases…
252 orders · Page 4 of 6
The High Court held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 2 crores as per Circular No. 9/2024. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of.
The High Court held that the appeal would not be maintainable due to the subsequent reduction in tax effect, aligning with revised monetary limits for appeals. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of.
The High Court held that the appeal is not maintainable due to the reduced tax effect, referencing a circular that revises monetary limits for appeals. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court noted that the dispute between the parties has been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, nothing further survives for consideration in the appeal.
The High Court allowed the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on a memo filed by the appellant stating that the dispute had been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.
The High Court of Karnataka considered the memo filed by the appellant, M/s. Karnataka State Cricket Association, seeking to withdraw the appeal. The memo stated that the dispute had been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and requested liberty to revive the appeal if the settlement was not finalized. The Court noted that the memo was placed on record. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as sought by the appellant. No decision was made on the merits of the original dispute.
The High Court noted that the dispute has been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the tax demand has been remitted. Therefore, the appeal stands disposed of as nothing further survives for consideration.
The High Court held that in view of the circular dated 17.09.2024, the appeal would not be maintainable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court noted the appellant's submission that the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court took note of the memo filed by the Revenue. The Court permitted the withdrawal of the appeal based on the settlement.
The High Court of Karnataka noted the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and allowed the appellant to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the scheme does not proceed beneficially.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The memo was taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No substantial questions of law were formulated or decided by the High Court, nor were any arguments from either side recorded or addressed on merits. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court disposed of the appeal as settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the appeal if the respondent fails to fulfill the scheme's conditions.
The High Court disposed of the appeal as settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the appeal if the respondent failed to fulfill the scheme's conditions.
The High Court noted the memo filed by the Revenue and permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court noted the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and allowed the appellant to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the scheme does not proceed beneficially.
The High Court disposed of the appeal in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the appeal in case of non-fulfillment of scheme conditions by the assessee.
The High Court allowed the appellant to withdraw the appeal as settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the scheme did not proceed beneficially.
The High Court held that since the assessment order was passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 144C(13), the subsequent order on merits by the Tribunal would not arise. Therefore, the substantial questions of law raised by both parties were not considered.
The High Court noted that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to revive if exceptions apply.
The High Court observed that the appeal was not maintainable by the revenue due to the tax effect being below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to revive.
The High Court noted that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, citing the CBDT circular. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to revive if exceptions under the circular applied.
The High Court noted that the appeal would not be maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to revive.
The High Court noted that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to revive.
The High Court noted that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to revive.
The High Court noted that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to revive.
The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable at the instance of the revenue due to the tax effect being below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to revive.
The High Court noted that the dispute has been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal no longer survives for consideration.
The High Court noted the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and acknowledged that the appeal no longer survived for consideration. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of.
The High Court held that the substantial question of law raised by the revenue was already answered against them by a co-ordinate bench in a similar case. Therefore, the appeal lacked merit.
The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the monetary limit for filing appeals stipulated in Circular No. 09/2024. The circular sets the limit at Rs. 2.00 Crores, which is higher than the tax effect of the present appeal.
The High Court followed its previous decision in the Flipkart Internet (P) Ltd. case, which addressed similar issues regarding 'make available' clauses and FTS. The court found that the questions of law raised in these appeals were answered by that precedent.
The High Court found that the Tribunal had set aside the PCIT's order solely on the ground that the AO had examined the transaction, without considering the merits. Therefore, the High Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a decision on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal erroneously relied on a case with different facts. The final assessment order was passed beyond the one-month period prescribed by Section 144C(13) of the IT Act, making the proceedings void.
The High Court held that the appeal is not maintainable because the tax effect is less than Rs. 2 Crores, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to revive.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, finding that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the claim for 100% depreciation on leasehold improvements. The High Court agreed, stating that depreciation was a non-issue before the Assessing Officer.
The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the monetary limit prescribed under CBDT Circular No.9/2024. The court disposed of the appeal as not maintainable, reserving liberty to seek revival if exceptions apply.
The Tribunal did not decide any substantive issue on merits. The High Court permitted the appellant (assessee) to withdraw the appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent (Revenue) had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No specific findings or reasoning on the merits of the case were recorded by the High Court as the appeal was withdrawn by the appellant. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment afresh was barred by limitation. The court found that the provisions of Section 153(7), as amended by the Finance Act, 2016, were applicable, requiring completion of the assessment by 31.03.2017.
The High Court disposed of the appeal as having been withdrawn, in terms of the memo filed by the appellant. Liberty was reserved to the assessee to seek revival of the appeal if the settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' does not materialize.
The High Court disposed of the appeal without admitting it, granting the Revenue liberty to revive it if the case falls within the exceptions of the relevant CBDT circulars. The substantial questions of law were kept open.
The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeals. This decision was based on a memo filed by the appellant stating they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.
The High Court noted that the dispute had been settled under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in accordance with this settlement.
The High Court held that the appeal involved no substantial question of law as the Tribunal had followed a Co-ordinate Bench decision. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court acknowledged that the dispute had been settled under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of based on this settlement.
The High Court found the appeal not maintainable as the ITAT's remand order was unassailable and the subsequent proceedings were pending before the First Appellate Authority. The court disposed of the appeal while keeping all contentions open.
The High Court found that the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law. The Tribunal's decision was based on a Co-ordinate Bench decision which was followed scrupulously.
The High Court held that the appeal against the ITAT's remand order was not maintainable because a fresh order had been passed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee was free to challenge the new order with all grounds, including cross-examination and jurisdiction.
The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the monetary limit prescribed by a CBDT circular. The appeal was disposed of on this ground.
The High Court allowed the appellant to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The respondent had no objection to the withdrawal.