Telangana High Court Judgments — 2024

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not discharged the burden of proof to show the investment was outside the block period. The court found that the findings of fact by the authorities were not perverse and were based on evidence.

The High Court quashed the orders issued under Section 148A(d) and notices issued under Section 148 of the Act. This was based on the Supreme Court's concession that for AY 2015-16, notices issued after April 1, 2021, should be dropped.

The tribunal held that the investment in joint venture companies violated Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, making the assessee ineligible for exemption under Section 11. However, only the income derived from this specific non-compliant investment is taxable, not the entire income of the institution.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding the computation of interest. The High Court found no error in the ITAT's decision and answered the substantial questions of law against the assessee.

The High Court accepted the submission that the appeal had become infructuous. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal's finding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(23G) was upheld. The Court clarified that the provisions of Section 10(23G) and subsequent clarifications by the CBDT governed investments made prior to the specified dates.

The High Court noted that the disputes were settled between the parties under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court followed the Supreme Court judgment in Bharati Cellular Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The court agreed that the issue was no longer res integra and was decided in favor of the assessee.

The High Court followed the Supreme Court's judgment in Bharati Cellular Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The court held that the issue was no longer res integra and the Supreme Court's decision was binding.

The High Court held that the singular point involved in the matter was already decided by the Supreme Court in favor of the assessees. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The High Court relied on a Supreme Court judgment in Bharati Cellular Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which had already decided the issue in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside.

The High Court held that the interest paid on borrowed capital for acquiring controlling interest in a company, which also resulted in salary income, is deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The forums below erred in disallowing the deduction.

The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The court noted that the appeal did not fall within the exception clause of the circular and therefore the prayer for withdrawal was granted.