Loading High Court cases…
93 orders · Page 2 of 2
The High Court granted the appellant's prayer to withdraw the appeals. The Court noted that the appellant had approached the High Court within the statutory time limit. Consequently, liberty was granted to the appellant to file fresh proceedings with corrected and modified pleadings and prayers, including the substantial questions of law, within a further period of one month. Subject to this liberty, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The Registry was directed to return the certified copies of the Tribunal's orders and service certificates to the learned standing counsel for further steps. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law.
The High Court granted the appellant's prayer to withdraw the appeals. The Court noted that the appellant had approached the High Court within the statutory time limit. Consequently, liberty was granted to the appellant to file fresh proceedings with corrected and modified pleadings and prayers, including the substantial questions of law, within a further period of one month. Subject to this liberty, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The Registry was directed to return the certified copies of the Tribunal's orders and service certificates to the learned standing counsel for further steps. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law.
The High Court held that the appeal raised no substantial question of law. The Court noted that the submissions before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal were primarily on the factual aspect of whether agricultural operations were conducted on the property within the two-year period prior to sale, as required by Section 54B. These factual aspects were considered by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal based on the materials on record, and findings were rendered accordingly. The Court found no dispute with the law laid down by the Apex Court but concluded that the appeal was purely on a question of facts, not law. Therefore, interference was declined, and the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court granted the appellant's prayer to withdraw the appeals. The Court noted that the appellant had approached the High Court within the statutory time limit. Consequently, liberty was granted to the appellant to file fresh proceedings with corrected and modified pleadings and prayers, including the substantial questions of law, within a further period of one month. Subject to this liberty, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The Registry was directed to return the certified copies of the Tribunal's orders and service certificates to the learned standing counsel for further steps. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law.
The High Court granted the appellant's prayer to withdraw the appeals. The Court noted that the appellant had approached the High Court within the statutory time limit. Consequently, liberty was granted to the appellant to file fresh proceedings with corrected and modified pleadings and prayers, including the substantial questions of law, within a further period of one month. Subject to this liberty, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The Registry was directed to return the certified copies of the Tribunal's orders and service certificates to the learned standing counsel for further steps. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law.
The High Court granted the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeals. The Court noted that the appellant (Revenue) had approached the Court within the statutory time limit. Consequently, liberty was granted to the appellant to file fresh proceedings with corrected and modified pleadings and prayers, including the substantial questions of law, within a further period of one month from the date of the order. Subject to this liberty, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The Registry was directed to return the certified copies of the Tribunal's orders and service certificates to the learned standing counsel for further steps.
The High Court granted the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeals. The Court noted that the appellant (Revenue) had approached the Court within the statutory time limit. Consequently, liberty was granted to the appellant to file fresh proceedings with corrected and modified pleadings and prayers, including the substantial questions of law, within a further period of one month from the date of the order. Subject to this liberty, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The Registry was directed to return the certified copies of the Tribunal's orders and service certificates to the learned standing counsel for further steps.
The High Court granted the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeals. The Court noted that the appellant (Revenue) had approached the Court within the statutory time limit. Consequently, liberty was granted to the appellant to file fresh proceedings with corrected and modified pleadings and prayers, including the substantial questions of law, within a further period of one month from the date of the order. Subject to this liberty, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The Registry was directed to return the certified copies of the Tribunal's orders and service certificates to the learned standing counsel for further steps.
The High Court granted the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeals. The Court noted that the appellant (Revenue) had approached the Court within the statutory time limit. Consequently, liberty was granted to the appellant to file fresh proceedings with corrected and modified pleadings and prayers, including the substantial questions of law, within a further period of one month from the date of the order. Subject to this liberty, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The Registry was directed to return the certified copies of the Tribunal's orders and service certificates to the learned standing counsel for further steps.
The High Court granted the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeals. The Court noted that the appellant (Revenue) had approached the Court within the statutory time limit. Consequently, liberty was granted to the appellant to file fresh proceedings with corrected and modified pleadings and prayers, including the substantial questions of law, within a further period of one month from the date of the order. Subject to this liberty, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The Registry was directed to return the certified copies of the Tribunal's orders and service certificates to the learned standing counsel for further steps.
The High Court granted the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeals. The Court noted that the appellant (Revenue) had approached the Court within the statutory time limit. Consequently, liberty was granted to the appellant to file fresh proceedings with corrected and modified pleadings and prayers, including the substantial questions of law, within a further period of one month from the date of the order. Subject to this liberty, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The Registry was directed to return the certified copies of the Tribunal's orders and service certificates to the learned standing counsel for further steps.
The High Court granted the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeals. The Court noted that the appellant (Revenue) had approached the Court within the statutory time limit. Consequently, liberty was granted to the appellant to file fresh proceedings with corrected and modified pleadings and prayers, including the substantial questions of law, within a further period of one month from the date of the order. Subject to this liberty, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The Registry was directed to return the certified copies of the Tribunal's orders and service certificates to the learned standing counsel for further steps.
The High Court observed that the contentions raised by the petitioners regarding the applicability of Section 179 and the pendency of the appeal could be appreciated by the assessing officer who issued the show cause notice. It is a settled proposition that a writ petition would not ordinarily lie against a show cause notice unless it is premeditated. The Court found that the show cause notice and the accompanying documents did not indicate premeditation, and that filing a reply would serve the cause. The petitioners were granted liberty to file a reply and convince the assessing officer for a stay of recovery, highlighting the pending appeal or the untenability of the notice. The Court also expected the department to consider the pending appeal. The petition was deemed premature at this stage. The Court further directed that any objection filed by the petitioners, or to be filed afresh, with respect to the subject matter and maintainability of the petition should be decided by the concerned respondent.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue conceded that the appeal was filed in June 2018. She brought to the Court's notice the 'new litigation policy' and a subsequent circular dated July 11, 2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). This circular mandates that the minimum value of litigation for approaching the High Court shall be Rs. 50,00,000/-. In the present case, the tax effect was only Rs. 34,01,999/-, which did not meet this requirement. The Court acknowledged that the Apex Court had held this circular to be retrospective, applying to pending litigations. Consequently, the Revenue sought permission to withdraw the appeal, which was granted. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue conceded that the appeal was filed in June 2018. She brought to the Court's notice the 'new litigation policy' and the subsequent circular dated 11.07.2018 issued by the CBDT, which stipulated a minimum litigation value of Rs. 50,00,000/- for approaching the High Court. In the present case, the tax effect was only Rs. 2,36,480/-, which did not satisfy this requirement. The Court was aware that the said circular had retrospective application to pending litigations. In light of these circumstances, the learned Standing Counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Court granted this permission, and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court noted that the appeal was filed in June 2018. The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue conceded that the appeal was filed long ago. She further submitted that by virtue of the 'new litigation policy' and a subsequent circular dated July 11, 2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), the minimum value of the subject matter of litigation for approaching the High Court is Rs. 50,00,000/-. In the present case, the tax effect is only Rs. 44,07,200/-, which does not satisfy this requirement. The Court acknowledged that the said circular has retrospective application to pending litigations. In light of these circumstances, the learned Standing Counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Court granted this permission and ordered accordingly.
The High Court dismissed the Income Tax Appeal. The reasoning for dismissal is based on the CBDT circular dated July 11, 2018. This circular mandates that appeals shall not be filed if the tax effect does not exceed the stipulated monetary limits. In this case, the tax effect of Rs. 2,31,220/- is below the High Court appeal limit of Rs. 50,00,000/-. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this procedural ground. The High Court explicitly stated that the question of law raised in the appeal shall remain open for decision in an appropriate case. No specific relief was granted or denied on the merits of the case.
The High Court held that the present appeal, with a tax effect of Rs. 17,81,134/-, falls below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- prescribed by the CBDT circular dated 11-07-2018 for filing appeals before the High Court. The Court noted that the circular was made effective retrospectively. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of not meeting the monetary threshold. However, the Court explicitly stated that the question of law raised in the appeal would remain open for decision in an appropriate future case. No specific relief was granted or deleted, and no part of the appeal was remanded.
The High Court held that the present Income Tax Appeal, with a tax effect of Rs. 19,00,468/-, falls below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- prescribed by the CBDT circular dated 11-7-2018 for filing appeals before the High Court. The circular, which was made effective retrospectively, mandates that appeals shall not be filed where the tax effect does not exceed these limits. Therefore, in view of the CBDT circular, the appeal was dismissed. However, the court clarified that the question of law raised in the appeal would remain open for decision in an appropriate case. No specific operative directions like remand or deletion were issued, other than the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court held that in view of the CBDT circular dated 11-7-2018, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for filing appeals before the High Court, and considering that the tax effect in the present appeal is Rs. 39,21,446/-, which is below the prescribed limit, the appeal is dismissed. The Court further clarified that the question of law raised in the appeal shall remain open for decision in an appropriate case. No specific finding was given on the merits of the legal question itself, as the dismissal was based on the procedural aspect of the CBDT circular.
The High Court held that the present appeal is dismissed in view of the CBDT circular dated July 11, 2018, as the tax effect of Rs. 18,60,755/- is below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for appeals before the High Court. The Court noted that the circular was made effective retrospectively. While the appeal is dismissed on the ground of the monetary limit, the question of law raised in the appeal is expressly left open for decision in an appropriate case. No operative directions for remand or deletion were issued, as the appeal was dismissed on a procedural ground.
The High Court held that the present Income Tax Appeal is dismissed in view of the CBDT circular dated 11-7-2018, as the tax effect of Rs. 6,65,333/- was below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for appeals before the High Court. The Court noted that the circular was made effective retrospectively. While dismissing the appeal on the grounds of the monetary limit, the Court explicitly stated that the question of law raised in the appeal shall remain open for decision in an appropriate case. No specific relief was granted or deleted, and the appeal was disposed of based on the procedural aspect of the CBDT circular.
The High Court held that in view of the CBDT circular dated 11-7-2018, which stipulates a monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for filing appeals before the High Court and was made effective retrospectively, the present appeal, with a tax effect of Rs. 7,72,852/-, was not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. However, the Court clarified that the question of law raised in the appeal would remain open for decision in an appropriate case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court held that in view of the CBDT circular dated July 11, 2018, which mandates that appeals shall not be filed where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits, and considering that the tax effect in the present appeal (Rs. 14,78,339/-) is below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for High Court appeals, the appeal is dismissed. The Court explicitly stated that the question of law raised in the appeal shall remain open for decision in an appropriate case. No specific operative directions were issued beyond the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court held that the Income Tax Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed in view of the CBDT circular dated 11-07-2018. The Court noted that the tax effect in the present appeal was Rs. 34,37,807/-, which is below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- prescribed for appeals before the High Court by the said circular. The circular was also made effective retrospectively. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this procedural ground. However, the Court explicitly stated that the question of law raised in the appeal shall remain open for decision in an appropriate case. No specific operative directions for remand or deletion were issued, as the appeal was dismissed on the basis of the circular.
The High Court held that the present appeal, having a tax effect of Rs. 11,51,529/-, is below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- prescribed by the CBDT circular dated 11-7-2018 for filing appeals before the High Court. The circular was made effective retrospectively. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on this ground. However, the court clarified that the question of law raised in the appeal shall remain open for decision in an appropriate case. No specific operative directions for remand or deletion were issued, as the appeal was dismissed based on the monetary limit.
The High Court held that in view of the CBDT circular dated 11-07-2018, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for filing appeals before the High Court and was made effective retrospectively, the present appeal with a tax effect of Rs. 42,02,281/- was below the prescribed limit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. However, the court clarified that the question of law raised in the appeal would remain open for decision in an appropriate case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court held that the Income Tax Appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable before it due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular dated 11-07-2018. The circular, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for appeals before the High Court and was made effective retrospectively, was the basis for the decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. However, the Court explicitly stated that the question of law raised in the appeal would remain open for decision in an appropriate case, indicating that the dismissal was on procedural grounds related to the monetary limit and not on the merits of the legal question.
The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable before it due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular dated July 11, 2018. The Court noted that the circular, which sets a limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for appeals before the High Court, was made effective retrospectively. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this procedural ground. However, the Court explicitly stated that the question of law raised in the appeal would remain open for decision in an appropriate case, indicating that the merits of the case were not adjudicated.
The High Court held that the present Income Tax Appeal, having a tax effect of Rs. 17,06,120/-, falls below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- stipulated by the CBDT circular dated July 11, 2018, for filing appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on this ground. The court explicitly stated that the question of law raised in the appeal shall remain open for decision in an appropriate case, indicating that the dismissal is based on procedural/monetary grounds rather than the merits of the substantive legal issue. No operative directions for remand or deletion were issued.
The High Court held that the present Income Tax Appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable before it due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular dated 11-7-2018. The circular clearly states that appeals shall not be filed where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50,00,000/- for High Court appeals. Since the tax effect in this case was Rs. 10,59,667/-, which is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, the appeal was dismissed on this ground. The Court explicitly stated that the question of law raised in the appeal would remain open for decision in an appropriate case, indicating that the dismissal was purely on procedural grounds related to the monetary limit and not on the merits of the substantive legal issue.
The High Court held that the Income Tax Appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular dated 11-7-2018. The circular, which sets the limit for High Court appeals at Rs. 50,00,000/-, was made effective retrospectively. Since the tax effect in this appeal was Rs. 5,88,264/-, which is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, the appeal was dismissed on this ground. The Court explicitly stated that the question of law raised in the appeal would remain open for decision in an appropriate case. No specific relief was granted or deleted, and no part of the appeal was remanded.
The High Court held that the Income Tax Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed in view of the CBDT circular dated 11-07-2018. The reasoning is that the tax effect in the present appeal (Rs. 40,74,120/-) is below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- prescribed for appeals before the High Court. The circular was made effective retrospectively. The ratio decidendi is that appeals falling below the prescribed monetary limits, as per CBDT circulars, are to be dismissed. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal. The question of law raised in the appeal is expressly left open for decision in an appropriate case.
The High Court dismissed the Income Tax Appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) circular dated July 11, 2018, which established a monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for filing appeals before the High Court. Since the tax effect in the present appeal was Rs. 26,96,463/-, which is below the prescribed limit, the appeal was not maintainable. The Court noted that the circular was made effective retrospectively. However, the Court explicitly stated that the question of law raised in the appeal would remain open for decision in an appropriate case. No specific relief was granted to either party on the merits of the case.
The High Court held that the appeal is dismissed in view of the CBDT circular dated 11-7-2018. The circular mandates that departmental appeals shall not be filed where the tax effect does not exceed the specified monetary limits, which for High Court appeals is Rs. 50,00,000/-. Since the tax effect in this case is Rs. 28,25,234/-, which is below the prescribed limit, the appeal is not maintainable. The Court explicitly stated that the question of law raised in the appeal shall remain open for decision in an appropriate case. No specific operative directions for remand or deletion were issued, as the appeal was dismissed on a procedural ground.
The High Court held that in view of the CBDT circular dated 11-07-2018, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for filing appeals before the High Court, and considering that the tax effect in the present appeal was Rs. 5,32,793/-, which is below the prescribed limit, the appeal is dismissed. The Court clarified that the question of law raised in the appeal would remain open for decision in an appropriate case. The reasoning is based on the retrospective applicability of the CBDT circular and its mandate to not file appeals where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular dated 11-7-2018. The circular, which sets a threshold of Rs. 50,00,000/- for appeals before the High Court, was made effective retrospectively. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this procedural ground. However, the Court explicitly stated that the question of law raised in the appeal shall remain open for decision in an appropriate case. No specific relief was granted or denied on the merits of the case.
The High Court dismissed the Income Tax Appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the CBDT circular dated July 11, 2018, which stipulated a monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for filing appeals before the High Court. Since the tax effect in the present appeal was Rs. 44,83,661/-, which is below the prescribed limit, the appeal was considered not maintainable under the circular. The Court explicitly stated that the question of law raised in the appeal would remain open for decision in an appropriate case. No specific relief was granted or denied on merits.
The High Court held that the present appeal is dismissed in view of the CBDT circular dated 11-7-2018. The circular specifies that appeals shall not be filed where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits, with the limit for High Court appeals being Rs. 50,00,000/-. As the tax effect in this case (Rs. 12,45,600/-) is below this limit, the appeal is not maintainable. The Court further clarified that the question of law raised in the appeal shall remain open for decision in an appropriate case. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court held that in view of the CBDT circular dated 11-7-2018, which mandates that departmental appeals shall not be filed where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50,00,000/- for appeals before the High Court, the present appeal, with a tax effect of Rs. 16,07,665/-, is dismissed. The reasoning is that the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit. The Court explicitly stated that the question of law raised in the appeal shall remain open for decision in an appropriate case. No specific operative directions like remand or deletion were issued, as the appeal was dismissed on a procedural ground.
The High Court held that the Income Tax Appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The reasoning was based on the CBDT circular dated July 11, 2018, which stipulated a monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for appeals to be filed before the High Court. As the tax effect in the present appeal was Rs. 17,49,519/-, which falls below this threshold, the appeal was dismissed. The Court explicitly stated that the question of law raised in the appeal would remain open for decision in an appropriate case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court held that the Income Tax Appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court relied on the CBDT circular dated 11-07-2018, which stipulated that appeals should not be filed where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits provided therein. For appeals before the High Court, this limit was Rs. 50,00,000/-. As the tax effect in the present appeal was Rs. 48,32,611/-, which is below the prescribed limit, the appeal was dismissed. The Court further clarified that the question of law raised in the appeal would remain open for decision in an appropriate case. No specific operative directions were issued beyond the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court held that the present Income Tax Appeal was not maintainable. The Court observed that the tax effect in the appeal was approximately Rs. 10,97,760/-, which was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- prescribed by the CBDT circular dated July 11, 2018, for filing appeals before the High Court. The Court further noted that this circular was made effective retrospectively. Consequently, in view of the CBDT circular and the tax effect being below the stipulated monetary limit, the appeal was dismissed. However, the Court clarified that the question of law raised in the appeal would remain open for decision in an appropriate case. No specific operative directions were issued beyond the dismissal of the appeal.