Loading High Court cases…
548 orders · Page 5 of 11
The High Court of Kerala, in its judgment dated September 3, 2021, allowed the appellant's request to withdraw the Income Tax Appeals. The Court noted that the counsel for the appellant sought indulgence to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the High Court ordered that the Income Tax Appeals stand dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made. The decision is based solely on the appellant's request for withdrawal and does not delve into the substantive issues that might have been raised in the appeals.
The High Court allowed the appellant's request to withdraw all the pending Income Tax Appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the appellant's request to withdraw all the pending Income Tax Appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The appellant's counsel sought permission to withdraw the Tax Appeals. The Court granted this request and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The counsel for the appellant bank sought permission from the Court to withdraw the Tax Appeals. The Court granted this request.
The High Court of Kerala allowed the appellant's request to withdraw the Income Tax Appeals. The Court ordered that the appeals stand dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the original appeals or the specific grounds that might have been raised before the ITAT. The decision is purely based on the appellant's request for withdrawal.
The High Court allowed the appellant's request to withdraw all the pending Income Tax Appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the exemption order, as issued, was binding and did not cover soda. While the company could pursue rectification of the exemption order with the government, the current revision petitions challenging the denial of exemption for soda were dismissed.
The High Court considered the request made by the appellant's counsel to withdraw the Tax Appeals. The Court granted the indulgence sought by the appellant. Consequently, all the Income Tax Appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No order was made as to costs. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the original disputes that led to the appeals before the ITAT or the High Court.
The High Court considered the request made by the appellant's counsel to withdraw the Tax Appeals. The Court granted the indulgence sought by the appellant. Consequently, all the Income Tax Appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No order was made as to costs. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the original disputes that led to the appeals before the ITAT or the High Court.
The High Court allowed the appellant's request to withdraw the Income Tax Appeals. The court noted that the counsel for the appellant sought indulgence to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the High Court ordered that the Income Tax Appeals stand dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the original tax disputes that led to the appeals before the ITAT or the High Court. The principle derived is that an appellant has the right to withdraw their appeal, and the court will generally grant such a request, leading to a dismissal of the appeal without prejudice to the parties on the merits.
The High Court allowed the appellant's request to withdraw all the pending Income Tax Appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the exemption order, as issued, was binding and did not cover soda. While the company could pursue rectification of the exemption order with the government, the current revision petitions challenging the denial of exemption for soda were dismissed.
The High Court considered the request made by the counsel for the appellant to withdraw the Income Tax Appeals. The Court allowed this request. Consequently, the Income Tax Appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No order was made as to costs. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the original disputes that led to the appeals before the ITAT or the High Court. The only decision made was to permit the withdrawal of the appeals.
The High Court held that the exemption order, as issued, was binding and did not cover soda. While the company could pursue rectification of the exemption order with the government, the current revision petitions challenging the denial of exemption for soda were dismissed.
The High Court allowed the appellant's request to withdraw all the pending Income Tax Appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the appellant's request to withdraw all the pending Income Tax Appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court of Kerala, upon hearing the counsel for the appellant, granted the request to withdraw the Income Tax Appeals. The Court noted that Advocate Mr. Alexander Joseph Markos, counsel for the appellant (CSB Bank Limited), sought the indulgence of the Court to withdraw the Tax Appeals. Consequently, the Court ordered that the Income Tax Appeals stand dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made. The specific grounds for withdrawal or the underlying issues decided by the ITAT were not discussed or adjudicated upon by the High Court, as the appeals were disposed of on the procedural aspect of withdrawal.
The High Court of Kerala, upon hearing the counsel for the appellant, granted the request to withdraw the Income Tax Appeals. The Court noted that Advocate Mr. Alexander Joseph Markos, counsel for the appellant (CSB Bank Limited), sought the indulgence of the Court to withdraw the Tax Appeals. Consequently, the Court ordered that the Income Tax Appeals stand dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made. The specific grounds for withdrawal or the underlying issues decided by the ITAT were not discussed or adjudicated upon by the High Court, as the appeals were disposed of on the procedural aspect of withdrawal.
The High Court allowed the appellant's counsel to withdraw the Tax Appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The appellant's counsel sought permission to withdraw the Tax Appeals. The Court granted this request and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The High Court of Kerala, after hearing the counsel for the appellant (assessee) and the Standing Counsel for the respondent (revenue), allowed the appellant's request to withdraw the Tax Appeals. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel sought indulgence to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the High Court ordered that all the Income Tax Appeals stand dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made. The specific reasons for the withdrawal or the underlying issues of the appeals were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.
The High Court of Kerala, upon hearing the counsel for the appellant, granted the request to withdraw the appeals. The Court ordered that the Income Tax Appeals stand dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the appeals or the underlying tax disputes.
The High Court allowed the appellant's request to withdraw all the pending Income Tax Appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court of Kerala, after hearing the counsel for the appellant who sought indulgence to withdraw the Tax Appeals, allowed the request. Consequently, all the Income Tax Appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original disputes that led to the appeals before the ITAT. No order as to costs was made. The principle derived from this judgment is that a party has the right to withdraw their appeal, and the court will generally grant such a request without adjudicating the underlying issues, provided there are no compelling reasons against it.
The High Court of Kerala, after hearing the counsel for the appellant who sought indulgence to withdraw the Tax Appeals, allowed the request. Consequently, all the Income Tax Appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original disputes that led to the appeals before the ITAT. No order as to costs was made. The principle derived from this judgment is that a party has the right to withdraw their appeal, and the court will generally grant such a request without adjudicating the underlying issues, provided there are no compelling reasons against it.
The High Court allowed the appellant's request to withdraw all the pending Income Tax Appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the appellant's request to withdraw all the pending Income Tax Appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the appellant's request to withdraw all the pending Income Tax Appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the request made by the appellant's counsel, Advocate Alexander Joseph Markos, to withdraw the Tax Appeals. Consequently, the Income Tax Appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The court did not delve into the merits of the tax disputes that led to the original appeals before the ITAT. No order as to costs was made. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals as withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the appellant's request to withdraw all the pending Income Tax Appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the appellant, CSB Bank Limited, to withdraw its Income Tax Appeals. The court's decision was based solely on the request made by the appellant's counsel. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made. The court did not delve into the substantive issues of the appeals, as the withdrawal obviated the need for adjudication on the merits. The ratio decidendi is that a party has the right to withdraw its appeal, and the court will generally grant such a request, especially when no prejudice is shown to the other side and no costs are awarded.
The appellant's counsel sought permission to withdraw all the filed Tax Appeals. The Court granted the request and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the appellant's counsel to withdraw the Tax Appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court of Kerala allowed the withdrawal of the Income Tax Appeals. The Court heard the counsel for the appellant, who sought permission to withdraw the appeals. The Court did not record any arguments from the respondent's side regarding the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made.
The High Court of Kerala, comprising Justices S.V. Bhatti and Viju Abraham, considered the request made by the appellant's counsel to withdraw the Income Tax Appeals. The Court allowed this request. Consequently, all the listed Income Tax Appeals (ITA Nos. 67, 98, 75, 158, 105, 89, 104, 153, 129, 70, 77, 88, 100, 103, 106, 69, 91, 85, 156, 161, 94, 87, 101, 141, 84, 86, 138, 90, 95, 324 & 326/2019) were dismissed as withdrawn. No order was made as to costs. The judgment does not delve into the substantive issues that might have been raised in the appeals.
The High Court allowed the appellant's request to withdraw all the pending Income Tax Appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court rejected the assessee's prayer for condonation of delay. The Court found that the assessee's explanation for the 1282-day delay was not satisfactory. The assessee's strategy of waiting for the outcome of penalty proceedings and then using those findings to challenge the assessment order was deemed not to demonstrate due diligence. The Court held that the assessee was expected to act diligently in questioning the ITAT's order dated September 5, 2013. The Court concluded that the cause shown for the delay did not satisfy even a liberal understanding of reason, and therefore, no sufficient cause was made out for condoning the significant delay. Consequently, the Income Tax Appeal was dismissed.
The High Court of Kerala, while admitting the appeal on substantial questions of law, noted that these questions were similar to those raised in a previous appeal, ITA No. 138/2014. This prior appeal, decided on August 5, 2021, had answered the questions in favour of the Assessee. By adopting the reasoning from ITA No. 138/2014, the High Court answered the present substantial questions of law in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The specific reasoning of the Tribunal, which was upheld by the High Court, was that the second proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) mandates that half of the admissible additional depreciation is allowed in the year of acquisition and installation, with the balance half implicitly allowed in the subsequent year.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) is to be restricted based on the definition of 'rural branch' as per the census report. The High Court found no grounds for interference with the Tribunal's order.
The High Court followed its reasoning in a previous related appeal (ITA No.40 of 2017). All substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
The High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in restricting the claim of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. The Tribunal's decision was based on its own prior order for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, which in turn relied on the High Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. The Tribunal interpreted 'rural branch' based on the ordinary meaning and the population criteria used in census reports, considering a revenue village as the unit for identifying a rural area. The High Court found no ground for interference with the Tribunal's order, as the principle applied was relevant to the controversy. The appeals were dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court of Kerala noted that the assessee's counsel informed the Court that the assessee has availed the benefit of the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. Consequently, the assessee stated that they do not wish to press the appeals. The Court recorded this statement. As a result, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the issues raised in the appeals. The Court also stated that there would be no order as to costs.
The High Court addressed four substantial questions of law. For Question No. 1, concerning brought forward additional depreciation, the Court held in favour of the assessee, noting that this Court had already decided an identical issue in favour of the assessee in ITA No. 87 of 2014. For Question No. 3, regarding DG Power Generation Units as an 'undertaking' for Section 80-IA deduction, the Court also ruled in favour of the assessee, citing a prior decision in ITA No. 103/2013. For Question No. 4, concerning the deletion of additions for belated PF contributions, the Court answered in favour of the revenue, stating that an identical issue was decided in ITA No. 151 of 2010 in favour of the revenue. For Question No. 2, regarding weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) for salary paid to Mr. Peter Becker, an employee of a subsidiary, the Court found no merit in the revenue's challenge. The Court reasoned that the nature of the expenditure for R&D was not disputed, and the employee was in charge of R&D activities in India. The mere fact that he was paid by a foreign entity and reimbursed by the assessee did not ipso facto mean the expense was incurred outside India. The Court upheld the ITAT's finding that the salary was within the parameters of Section 35(2AB). Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, with Questions 1 to 3 answered in favour of the assessee and Question 4 in favour of the revenue.
The Tribunal held that co-operative banks are eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) based on previous High Court judgments. The court affirmed that the assessee was entitled to the 7.5% deduction on total income and remanded the issue of rural branch deductions for fresh consideration.
The High Court noted that the assessee's counsel had informed the Court that the assessee had availed the benefit of the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and did not want to press the appeals. A statement to this effect was placed on record. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made. The specific grounds of appeal and the ITAT's order were not discussed or decided on merits, as the appeals were disposed of based on the assessee's submission.
The High Court held that the interest income earned by the assessee on the Fixed Deposit accounts, funded by amounts transferred by DRDO and ISRO, is non-computable income in the hands of the assessee. The Court reasoned that the assessee was merely a custodian of these funds, which rightfully belonged to DRDO and ISRO, both being government departments or government companies. The MoUs clearly indicated the purpose of the funds and the assessee's role in managing them for the exclusive benefit of these departments. The Court found that the assessee had discharged its burden to establish that the interest was not its real income. The Tribunal's reasoning that the Fixed Deposit was not authorized by DRDO/ISRO was found to lack logic, as the assessee, as a prudent custodian, took measures that resulted in interest, but this should not lead to taxation at the assessee's hands. The Court emphasized that an assessee is obligated to pay tax on its real income, not on every receipt recognized in its books. The appeals were allowed, setting aside the contrary findings of the lower authorities.
The High Court held that the interest income earned by the assessee on fixed deposits, funded by amounts transferred by DRDO and ISRO, was non-computable income in the hands of the assessee. The Court reasoned that the assessee was merely a custodian of these funds, which rightfully belonged to DRDO and ISRO, both being government departments or organizations. The fixed deposits were established for the exclusive benefit of these departments, and the assessee had no claim over the principal or the interest earned. The Court found the Tribunal's reasoning that the fixed deposit was not authorized by DRDO/ISRO to be lacking logic, as the assessee was entrusted with the funds for utilization for their benefit. The Court emphasized that an assessee is obligated to pay tax on its real income, not on every receipt recognized in its books. The Court found that the assessee had discharged its burden to establish that the interest income was non-computable. The contrary findings of the lower authorities were set aside. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the interest income earned by the assessee on the Fixed Deposits made from funds transferred by DRDO and ISRO was non-computable income in the hands of the assessee. The Court reasoned that the assessee was merely a custodian of these funds, which belonged to the respective government departments. The funds were transferred for specific strategic purposes, and the assessee had no claim over them or the interest generated. The Court found the Tribunal's reasoning that the Fixed Deposit was not authorized by DRDO/ISRO to be lacking logic, as the assessee was entrusted with the funds for utilization for the benefit of these departments. The Court emphasized that an assessee is liable to pay tax on its real income, not on every receipt recognized in its books. The burden on the assessee to establish non-computable income was discharged by demonstrating that the funds and the resultant interest belonged to DRDO/ISRO. Therefore, the contrary findings of the Tribunal were set aside.
The High Court decided that the disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation loss needed reconsideration by the Tribunal, remitting these issues. However, the disallowance of depreciation on the leased building was upheld.