Telangana High Court Judgments — 2021

The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn without any costs.

The High Court granted the appellant-Department's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on the appeal falling below the monetary limits prescribed by a Board circular.

The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal filed by the Income Tax Department. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn without any costs.

The High Court held that some of the properties were indeed joint family properties, while others were separate properties of individuals, to be inherited according to law. The court also set aside the trial court's findings regarding the temple property, suggesting a separate suit for its adjudication.

The High Court noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the Revenue sought to withdraw its appeal.

The High Court noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the Income Tax Department sought to withdraw its appeal.

The High Court disposed of the appeals on the grounds of low tax effect, keeping the questions of law open. Liberty was granted to apply for restoration if exceptions in CBDT circulars were found to apply.

The High Court granted the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on the appeal falling below the monetary limits fixed by the Board.

The High Court granted the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court allowed the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly disposed of on withdrawal.

The High Court noted that the appellant sought to withdraw the appeal due to applying for settlement under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of on withdrawal.

The tribunal noted that the appellant sought to withdraw the appeal as per the requirements of the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of on withdrawal.

The High Court granted the appellant liberty to withdraw the appeal. This withdrawal was to enable the appellant to pursue their remedy under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

The High Court granted the appellant liberty to withdraw the appeal. This withdrawal was permitted to allow the appellant to pursue their remedy under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

The High Court found no manifest error of law or miscarriage of justice in the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The petitioner had issued the cheque towards a pre-existing liability, and the complainant had proven its case.

The High Court granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted with liberty to revive the appeal if relief was not obtained under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The appellant sought to withdraw the appeal with liberty to revive it if they did not receive favorable relief under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The High Court allowed this request.

The High Court allowed the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was granted with liberty to revive the appeal if the appellant did not receive favorable relief under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The High Court found no concrete evidence to establish that A-2 and A-3 hatched a conspiracy with A-1 for obtaining cheque books or withdrawing funds. The Court noted significant lapses in the investigation and procedural violations by the prosecution.

The High Court granted permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive if the scheme did not provide a favorable outcome.

The High Court granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive if relief under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme is not obtained.

The High Court granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive it if the relief under the scheme is not favorable.

The Tribunal correctly held that the transfers were stock transfers and not central sales, especially since the assessee had furnished the requisite Form F and no deficiencies were found. The court found no illegality in the Tribunal's detailed findings of fact.

The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with no costs awarded.

The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The appellant wished to avail benefits under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the dispute resolution under the Vivad se Vishwas Act was not satisfactory.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the dispute resolution under the Vivad se Vishwas Act was not satisfactory.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the dispute was not satisfactorily resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act.

The High Court granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive it if the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement failed.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the appellant to revive the appeal if the resolution under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act was not satisfactory.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The appellant was granted liberty to approach the court again if no settlement was reached under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The High Court modified the Family Court's order regarding permanent alimony. It directed the husband to pay Rs. 50,00,000/- as a one-time settlement to the wife, considering her financial needs and the standard of living during the marriage.

The tribunal held that the electricity supplied to the township was not intrinsically connected to BALCO's business operations and that the amendment to Rule 43 of the CGST Rules was not clarificatory but expanded the scope of supplies. Therefore, the amendment was not retrospective.

The High Court noted the settlement of the dispute through the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court noted the settlement of the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court recorded the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court recorded the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The court granted liberty to the appellant to seek restoration of the appeal if the resolution under the Vivad se Vishwas Act was not satisfactory.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the appellant's application to the CBDT under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020.

The High Court held that the provision for leave encashment was not an admissible deduction for the relevant assessment year. The insertion of Section 43B(f) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which requires actual payment for such deductions, applied prospectively and regulated the deduction.

The High Court granted permission to the appellant to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.