Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Agricutlrual Market Committee

PDF · subscribers
ITTA/39/2011HC TelanganaHBHC01029158201130 March 2011Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN2 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 the appellant to apply for restoration within three months if the matter is covered by exceptions in CBDT circulars.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax filed three tax appeals against the respondent, Shri Tilak Raj Ajmani. The tax effect in these appeals was admittedly below Rs. 2 crores.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeals should be entertained despite the low tax effect, considering the potential for the matter to be covered by exceptions in CBDT circulars.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2026:JHHC:6762-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Tax Appeal No. 38 of 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Marg, P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District : Patna.

... ... Appellant

Versus Shri Tilak Raj Ajmani, Proprietor: M/s Ranchi Tent House, Dalpatti, Church Road, P.O. GPO & P.S. Lower Bazar, District : Ranchi.

...

Respondent

With

Tax Appeal No. 39 of 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Marg, P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District : Patna.

... ... Appellant

Versus Shri Tilak Raj Ajmani, Proprietor : M/s Ranchi Tent House, Dalpatti, Church Road, P.O. GPO & P.S. Lower Bazar, District : Ranchi.

...

Respondent

With

Tax Appeal No. 40 of 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Marg, P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District : Patna.

... ... Appellant

Versus Shri Tilak Raj Ajmani, Proprietor : M/s Ranchi Tent House, Dalpatti, Church Road, P.O. GPO & P.S. Lower Bazar, District : Ranchi.

...

Respondent

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

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

--------- For the Appellant/s: 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/s: Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate.

--------- 10/Dated: 13.03.2026

1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. 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.

2026:JHHC:6762-DB

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.) 13.03.2026

N.A.F.R.

APK/VK

Uploaded on 16.03.2026

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →