Loading High Court cases…
152 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal held that the price difference constituted a business loss allowable under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's view, finding no reason to differ.
The Tribunal held that the boarding and lodging allowances paid to employees deputed to the UK constituted salaries liable to tax. It found that the allowances were lump-sum payments without substantiating evidence of actual expenses, thus not falling under Section 10(14) exemptions.
The Tribunal held that Sales Tax and Excise Duty do not form part of the turnover. Therefore, they are not includable in the turnover for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the boarding and lodging allowances paid to employees deputed to the UK constituted salaries liable to tax. It found that the allowances were lump-sum payments without substantiating evidence of actual expenses, thus not falling under Section 10(14) exemptions.
The Tribunal held that Sales Tax and Excise Duty do not form part of the turnover for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act. This decision was based on a Supreme Court judgment which clarified that these taxes are not includable in the turnover.
The tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its initial burden under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act to prove the source of the share capital. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in treating the amount as income from undisclosed sources.
The Tribunal upheld the initiation of proceedings under Section 158BD as incriminating material was found from the father-in-law and forwarded to the AO. The Tribunal also confirmed the concurrent finding of lower authorities that the property was acquired jointly and not from HUF agricultural income.
The High Court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal available under the Corporation's rules before filing a writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable.
The Tribunal had previously passed orders rectifying its earlier decisions concerning the levy of interest. In light of these rectification orders, the assessee's counsel submitted that the appeals no longer required adjudication.
The Tribunal held that interest on securities is not exigible to tax under the Interest Act, 1974. This decision was based on Supreme Court judgments which clarified that the amendment did not imply taxability.
The Tribunal held that the obligation to get accounts audited is independent of filing the return and that non-receipt of TDS certificates does not constitute a reasonable cause for non-compliance. The assessee was aware of his receipts and payments and had sufficient time to prepare accounts.
The Tribunal held that the deletion of the second proviso to Section 43-B of the Income Tax Act has retrospective effect. Consequently, the disallowance of E.P.F. and E.S.I. payments made during the relevant assessment years was set aside.
The Tribunal, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lakshmi Machine Works, held that Excise Duty and Sales Tax do not partake of the character of turnover and therefore are not includable in the turnover under Section 80HHC(3) of the Act. The reasoning is that the Supreme Court has authoritatively settled this issue. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed in the appeals were answered against the Revenue. The Tribunal did not leave any issue undecided. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals.
The High Court held that the laches were on the part of the defendants for not obtaining necessary documents like title deeds and encumbrance certificates, despite the plaintiff's readiness to pay the balance sale consideration. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance.
The Tribunal held that the AO's view, considering the date Form 7B was signed by both parties as the effective transfer date, was plausible. It further ruled that the conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met, as the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred for an illegal purpose, which is an offense or prohibited by law, is not deductible. This is due to the retrospective insertion of Explanation (1) to Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The tribunal held that 90% of net interest, includible in the profits of business, should be deducted for determining the profits of business for Section 80-HHC. This was based on a Supreme Court judgment.
The Tribunal held that the deletion of the second proviso to Section 43-B of the Income Tax Act has retrospective effect. Consequently, the disallowance of E.P.F. and E.S.I. payments made during the relevant assessment years was set aside.
The tribunal correctly fastened liability on the insurance company as the driver possessed a valid driving license. The compensation amount was enhanced by adding future prospects to the deceased's income.
The High Court held that degrees from Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar, with specific course names, were recognized up to a certain date based on previous government orders. Therefore, the denial of benefits based on non-recognition was incorrect.
The Tribunal correctly confirmed the assessment orders. The assessee's authorized representative conceded that rental income is assessable under house property. Maintenance charges, being incidental to letting out, are not business income and are to be treated as income from other sources.
The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the MACT, considering future prospects, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium. The appeal by the insurance company was dismissed.
The High Court held that the reassessment proceedings were void as the Assessing Officer acted on the dictates of higher authorities without independent application of mind. The Court also noted that the limitation period for framing the reassessment order had lapsed.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limits for filing departmental appeals. The appellant was granted liberty to revive the appeal if it fell outside the ambit of the circular.
The High Court found that the MACT had erred in determining the deceased's age and applying the multiplier. The court enhanced the compensation awarded to the claimant, considering future prospects, correct multiplier, and other heads like loss of estate and consortium.
The tribunal found that the claimant's contributory negligence was not proven and that the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver was established. The court enhanced the compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, and also awarded a sum for future treatment, modifying the original award.
The Tribunal erred in distinguishing the Supreme Court's judgment in R. Lingamallu Raghukumar by focusing on the deletion of Section 47(ii) of the Act. The deletion was irrelevant as the case did not involve dissolution of the firm.
The High Court decided not to answer the reference as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the relevant circulars. Therefore, the reference was considered academic.
The Tribunal failed to consider future loss of income and non-pecuniary damages as per Supreme Court judgments. The High Court enhanced the compensation by adding future prospects, adjusting the multiplier, and increasing non-pecuniary damages.