Loading High Court cases…
88 orders · Page 1 of 2
The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Court granted permission and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court, upon a request from the appellant's counsel, granted permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court granted the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on the appeal falling below the monetary limits set by the Board for filing appeals.
The High Court granted the appellant-Department leave to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on the appeal failing to meet the monetary limits prescribed by a CBDT circular.
The High Court granted the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on the appeal falling below the monetary limits prescribed by a CBDT circular.
The High Court granted the Income Tax Department's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on a circular from the Board regarding monetary limits for appeals.
The High Court granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on a circular from the Board fixing monetary limits for appeals.
The High Court granted the appellant's (Income Tax Department) request to withdraw the appeal. This withdrawal was based on a circular from the Board setting monetary limits for filing appeals.
The High Court granted the 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 granted the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on the appeal falling below the monetary limits prescribed by a CBDT circular.
The High Court granted the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on a circular fixing monetary limits for appeals.
The High Court granted the Department's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on a circular from the Board fixing monetary limits for appeals. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the CAT did not act illegally or commit an error of law in dismissing the OA as not maintainable. The question of jurisdiction was sub judice and the petitioner was not remediless.
The High Court granted the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on a circular from the Board fixing monetary limits for appeals.
The High Court granted the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on a circular from the Board setting monetary limits for appeals.
The High Court granted the appellant-Department leave to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to falling below the monetary limits set by the Board.
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 Income Tax Department leave to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on a circular from the Board regarding monetary limits for appeals.
The High Court granted the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court granted the appellant-Department leave to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 granted the 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 granted the appellant-Department leave 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 acknowledged the submission regarding the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as settled.
The High Court granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court granted the Income Tax Department's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn based on the CBDT's circular regarding monetary limits.
The High Court granted the Income Tax Department leave to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn.
The High Court granted leave to the Income Tax Department to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn, with no order as to costs.
The High Court granted the Income Tax Department's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on a certificate stating the tax effect fell below CBDT's monetary limits.
The High Court granted the Income Tax Department's request to withdraw the appeal. This withdrawal was based on a certificate from the Assessing Officer stating the tax effect fell below monetary limits prescribed by CBDT circulars.
The High Court granted the Income Tax Department leave to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on instructions from the CBDT due to the appeal falling below monetary limits.
The High Court granted the Income Tax Department's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on a CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals.
The High Court allowed the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the Department's litigation policy which stipulates not to pursue appeals with monetary stakes below Rs. 2 Crores.
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal based on the Department's litigation policy. The policy stipulated not to pursue appeals with monetary stakes below Rs. 2 Crores.
The High Court allowed the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn without any costs.
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal based on the Department's litigation policy. The policy stated that appeals with monetary stakes below Rs. 2 Crores would not be pursued.
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal based on the Department's litigation policy. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn without any costs.
The High Court allowed the Department to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with no costs.
The High Court allowed the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn without any costs.
The High Court allowed the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with no costs awarded.
The High Court allowed the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court noted the Department's submission regarding their litigation policy. The Court then dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court noted the Department's litigation policy, which states that appeals with monetary stakes below Rs. 2 Crores will not be pursued. Consequently, the Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The Department's decision to withdraw was based on its litigation policy regarding monetary stakes.
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as per the department's litigation policy. The policy stipulated not to pursue appeals with monetary stakes below Rs. 2 Crores.
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal based on the Department's litigation policy. The policy states that appeals with monetary stakes below Rs. 2 Crores will not be pursued.
The High Court allowed the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn without any costs.