Loading High Court cases…
88 orders · Page 2 of 2
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 policy dictates not to pursue appeals with monetary stakes below Rs. 2 Crores.
The High Court allowed the Department to withdraw the appeal based on their revised litigation policy. The policy states that appeals with monetary stakes below Rs. 2 Crores will not be pursued.
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal based on the department's litigation policy. The policy states that appeals with monetary stakes less than Rs. 2 Crores will not be pursued.
The High Court allowed the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. This decision was based on a new litigation policy that discourages 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 accepted the submission of the Department to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to the Department to seek restoration if the case falls under the exception clause stipulated in the circular.
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as per the Department's request. No costs were imposed.
The High Court allowed the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the case falls under an exception clause in another circular.
The High Court noted the Department's submission regarding its litigation policy and the monetary stakes involved. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with no costs.
The High Court accepted the Department's submission and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the Department to seek restoration under specific circumstances.
The High Court allowed the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the case falls under an exception clause in another circular.
The High Court allowed the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This was based on a litigation policy of the Department not to pursue appeals where the monetary stakes are less than Rs. 2 Crores.
The High Court allowed the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. This decision was based on the Department's new litigation policy which discourages appeals with monetary stakes below Rs. 2 Crores.
The High Court allowed the Department to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the Department's litigation policy which states that appeals with monetary stakes less than Rs. 2 Crores will not be pursued.
The High Court allowed the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on a new litigation policy where appeals with monetary stakes below Rs. 2 Crores are not to be pursued.
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The Department cited its litigation policy, which mandates not to pursue appeals with monetary stakes below Rs. 2 Crores.
The High Court allowed the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. This decision was based on a new litigation policy that discourages 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 accepted the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on a new litigation policy where appeals with monetary stakes below Rs. 2 Crores are not to be pursued.
The High Court allowed the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, and no costs were imposed.
The High Court allowed the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to the Department to seek restoration if the case falls under an exception clause.
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 Department filed a memo stating their litigation policy, which mandates not initiating appeals where monetary stakes are less than Rs. 2 Crores. Based on this policy, the Department sought to withdraw the appeal.
The High Court allowed the Department to withdraw the appeal. This decision was based on the Department's litigation policy which mandates 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 restricts appeals where monetary stakes are below Rs. 2 Crores.
The High Court allowed the Department 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. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This was based on a circular issued by the Department's litigation policy, which mandates not to initiate appeals where the monetary stakes are less than 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. The Department cited its litigation policy, which mandates not to initiate appeals where the monetary stakes are less than Rs. 2 Crores.
The High Court noted the department's litigation policy and allowed their prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the ITAT erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of limitation, considering the Supreme Court's decision on extension of limitation. The Court set aside the ITAT's order and remitted the matter for fresh disposal.
The appellant's counsel submitted that the appellant did not wish to press the appeal further and sought permission to withdraw it. The court granted permission and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. This decision was made due to the inability to proceed with the case as the appellant's legal representatives could not be contacted.
The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the Income Tax Tribunal Appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.