Loading High Court cases…
374 orders · Page 2 of 8
The Tribunal held that the issue of notice service was no longer open for the assessee to raise after a previous remand order. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's view, finding it just and proper.
The tribunal decided to enhance the compensation by adding 25% for future prospects and Rs. 1,00,000/- under non-pecuniary heads. The court also reduced the contributory negligence of the deceased from 50% to 30% and set the interest rate at 7.5%.
The High Court, referencing a previous decision concerning the same assessee, held that the Tribunal had rightly appreciated the issue and allowed the assessee's appeal. The issues were answered in favor of the assessee and against the Department.
The Tribunal was justified in estimating disallowance up to 5% of expenses because they were not properly audited and lacked vouchers. The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's conclusion.
The Tribunal held that interest income not directly related to export business should be taxed as 'income from other sources'. It also disallowed the claim for netting interest paid and received to claim the excess as business expenditure.
The High Court held that the ITAT had correctly examined the scope of Section 158-BB of the Income Tax Act, considering both materials found during the search and other information available to the Assessing Officer relatable to such evidence. The court also found that the Revenue's appeal did not raise any substantial question of law.
The High Court held that the selection of a case for scrutiny is an administrative matter and does not affect the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction. Furthermore, CBDT guidelines cannot override statutory powers conferred by the Income Tax Act, and the additions to fixed assets were justified.
The High Court disposed of the appeal without interfering with the impugned order of the Tribunal. This was done in view of a CBDT circular enhancing monetary limits for filing appeals.
The Tribunal agreed to close the recovery proceedings, noting the meagre recovery amounts, the time and effort involved, and the absence of pending claims against the company. Any recovered amount would be deposited in the Common Pool Fund after expenses.
The Tribunal held that the Excise and Taxation Department would not be liable to pay the tax if the toll lessees had already paid income tax on their earnings. However, the department would be liable to pay interest on the short-deducted TCS.
The Tribunal agreed to close the recovery proceedings, noting the meagre recovery amounts, the time and effort involved, and the absence of pending claims against the company. Any recovered amount would be deposited in the Common Pool Fund after expenses.
The appellate court found that the appellant failed to substantiate their claims in the counter-suit due to a lack of evidence. The court upheld the trial court's decision, finding the respondent's claim for construction charges to be valid.
The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision that the appeal was filed with undue delay and without sufficient cause. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court found the petition by Ravi Sinha (son of the deceased accused) to be misconceived as it was not based on any prior adjudication request. The petition by the Income Tax Department was also considered misconceived as the seized amount was found to be proceeds of the AHD scam and unclaimed.
The High Court held that while the defendants admitted paying Rs. 5,20,000/-, there was no evidence to prove it was a full and final settlement of all dues. The trial court's failure to address this issue vitiated its judgment.
The High Court granted the permission as prayed for by the appellant. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court noted the appellant's submission that the withdrawal was based on CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, as the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- and the case did not qualify for any exceptions. The appellant was granted liberty to revive the appeal at a later stage if any discrepancy came to notice, acknowledging the possibility of human error. No decision was made on the merits of the original dispute.
The High Court modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, increasing it to Rs. 13,50,000/-. The court determined a notional monthly income and applied a multiplier based on the deceased's age to calculate loss of dependency.
The High Court held that the registered owner of the vehicle was the primary consideration for insurance liability, and the deceased could be treated as a third party. While the quantum of compensation under the conventional head was erroneous, the annual income assessment was upheld. The court recalculated the compensation based on established precedents.
The Tribunal agreed to close the recovery proceedings, noting the meagre recovery amounts, the time and effort involved, and the absence of pending claims against the company. Any recovered amount would be deposited in the Common Pool Fund after expenses.
The High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the CST exemption as per the plain language of the notification, which granted the benefit for a period not exceeding 6 years and 8 months. The Court also found that the Assessing Authority had not followed the mandatory procedural requirements for scrutiny of returns.
The Tribunal accepted the Official Liquidator's proposal to close the recovery proceedings. Any amount recovered by the Official Liquidator is to be deposited in the Common Pool Fund after adjusting expenses.
The Tribunal accepted the Official Liquidator's proposal to close the recovery proceedings due to the meagre amount involved, the difficulty in tracing debtors, and the time-consuming nature of further action. Any recovered amount would be deposited in the Common Pool Fund after expenses.