THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. M/S. NATIONLA MINERAL DEVLP.LTD., HYD

PDF · subscribers
ITTA/22/2017HC TelanganaHBHC01035106201713 December 2021Bench: T.MADHAVI DEVI,UJJAL BHUYAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

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.

What were the facts?

The appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax had a tax effect below Rs. 2 crores. The appellant's counsel stated they had no instructions to withdraw the appeals.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether to proceed with appeals having a low tax effect, considering the possibility of exceptions to the low tax effect policy.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2026:JHHC:6815-DB

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Tax Appeal No. 24 of 2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Marg, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District: Patna.

… … … Appellant

Versus M/S Mishrilall Jain & Sons, having its Office at M. D. House, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S.- Chaibasa, District: Singhbhum West. … … … Respondent

With Tax Appeal No. 22 of 2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Marg, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District: Patna.

… … … Appellant

Versus M/S Mishrilall Jain & Sons, having its Office at M. D. House, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S.- Chaibasa, District: Singhbhum West. … … … Respondent

With Tax Appeal No. 23 of 2017 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Marg, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District: Patna-800001. … … … Appellant

Versus M/S Mishrilall Jain & Sons, having its Office at M. D. House, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S.- Chaibasa, District: Singhbhum West. … … … Respondent

--------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

--------- For the Appellants: Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Sr. S.C. (through VC)

Mr. Anurag Vijay, Jr. S.C.

Mr. Durgesh Agarwal, Advocate

Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate For the Respondent: Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, Advocate Mr. Mahendra Kumar Chowdhary, Advocate --------- 14/Dated: 13.03.2026

1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2026:JHHC:6815-DB

-2-

2.

The tax effect in these appeals is admittedly below Rs. 2 crores. However, Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, learned counsel for the appellant/s, states that he has no instructions to withdraw these appeals. 3. Accordingly, we dispose of these appeals on the grounds of low tax effect by keeping open the questions of law. 4. However, at the later stage, if the appellant/s finds that the matter is covered by any of the exceptions in the CBDT circulars, liberty is granted to them to apply for restoration of these appeals by filing C.M.P. Such C.M.P. should however, be filed within a reasonable period not exceeding three months from today. 5. The appeals are disposed of with liberty in the above terms. No Costs. 6. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of.

(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

March 13, 2026

N.A.F.R. APK/VK

Uploaded on 16.03.2026

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →