Gujarat High Court Judgments — 2008

The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals. It held that while the ITAT should give due weight to CBDT circulars, it is not bound to decide appeals on merits solely based on contravention of such circulars. The newly inserted Section 268A(4) of the Income-Tax Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The right to file an appeal, though statutory, can be regulated by the Board through instructions. However, if the Supreme Court or the territorial High Court has declared the law, the Tribunal must follow that declaration. The Court clarified that if the departmental representative did not raise objections regarding the applicability of exceptions to CBDT instructions at the time of hearing, the Department 'missed the bus'. However, in cases where objections were raised and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on low tax effect without dealing with these objections, the Department could apply to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. The Court also noted that for certain appeals (Tax Appeal Nos. 496, 545, 547, 548, 550 and 704 of 2007), an additional substantial question of law regarding the valuation of closing stock was framed, but no finding was given as the Tribunal had not decided this issue on merits, and the departmental representative had not raised any objection on this specific issue.

The High Court dismissed all the tax appeals. The Court held that while the ITAT is bound to decide appeals on merits if a substantial question of law of importance is involved, or if the issue is covered by a High Court or Supreme Court judgment, the appeals could not be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on this ground alone. The Court stated that if the departmental representative did not raise objections regarding the applicability of a circular or its exceptions at the time of hearing before the Tribunal, the Department had "missed the bus" and would not be granted a "second inning." However, in cases where such objections were raised and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without dealing with these objections, indulgence would be shown, permitting the Department to move an appropriate application before the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. The Court also noted that Section 268A(4) of the Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such Circulars, and the filing of an appeal, though a statutory right, can be regulated by the Board through instructions. The Court clarified that it was dismissing the appeals, reserving liberty to the Department only in those specific cases where objections were raised before the Tribunal regarding exceptions to the circular and the Tribunal failed to address these objections while dismissing the appeal on low tax effect.

The High Court dismissed all the tax appeals. The Court held that while the ITAT is bound to decide appeals on merits if a substantial question of law of importance is involved, or if the issue is covered by a High Court or Supreme Court judgment, the appeals could not be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on this ground alone. The Court stated that if the departmental representative did not raise objections regarding the applicability of a circular or its exceptions at the time of hearing before the Tribunal, the Department had "missed the bus" and would not be granted a "second inning." However, in cases where such objections were raised and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without dealing with these objections, indulgence would be shown, permitting the Department to move an appropriate application before the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. The Court also noted that Section 268A(4) of the Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such Circulars, and the filing of an appeal, though a statutory right, can be regulated by the Board through instructions. The Court clarified that it was dismissing the appeals, reserving liberty to the Department only in those specific cases where objections were raised before the Tribunal regarding exceptions to the circular and the Tribunal failed to address these objections while dismissing the appeal on low tax effect.

The High Court dismissed all the Tax Appeals. The Court held that while the Tribunal is bound to decide appeals on merits when substantial questions of law of importance are involved, or when the issue is covered by High Court or Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal is not obligated to decide an appeal on merits simply because it was filed by the Department in contravention of a circular. Due weightage must be given to CBDT circulars, and Section 268A(4) of the Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The filing of an appeal is a statutory right that can be regulated by the Board through instructions. However, the Court reserved liberty for the Department to apply to the Tribunal to decide appeals on merits in cases where objections were raised before the Tribunal (either in the appeal memo or during hearing) specifically contending that the appeal was covered by an exception, and despite such objection, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without dealing with the contention. For other cases, the appeals were dismissed.

The High Court dismissed all the tax appeals. It held that while the ITAT should give due weight to CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals, it is not bound to decide an appeal on merits solely because it was filed in contravention of such a circular. The newly inserted Section 268A(4) of the Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The right to file an appeal, though statutory, can be regulated by the Board through instructions. However, if the Supreme Court or the territorial High Court has declared the law on a question, the Tribunal must follow that declaration. The Court clarified that the Department has liberty to apply to the Tribunal to decide appeals on merits only in those specific cases where objections regarding exceptions to the low tax effect rule were raised before the Tribunal (either in the appeal memo or at the hearing) and the Tribunal, despite such objections, dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without dealing with the contention. For other cases, the appeals were dismissed. The Court did not give any finding on the issue of excise duty on closing stock valuation as it was not decided on merits by the Tribunal.

The High Court dismissed all the tax appeals. It held that while the ITAT should give due weight to CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals, it is not bound to decide an appeal on merits solely because it was filed in contravention of such a circular. The newly inserted Section 268A(4) of the Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The right to file an appeal, though statutory, can be regulated by the Board through instructions. However, if the Supreme Court or the territorial High Court has declared the law on a question, the Tribunal must follow that declaration. The Court clarified that the Department has liberty to apply to the Tribunal to decide appeals on merits only in those specific cases where objections regarding exceptions to the low tax effect rule were raised before the Tribunal (either in the appeal memo or at the hearing) and the Tribunal, despite such objections, dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without dealing with the contention. For other cases, the appeals were dismissed. The Court did not give any finding on the issue of excise duty on closing stock valuation as it was not decided on merits by the Tribunal.

The High Court dismissed all the Tax Appeals. However, it reserved liberty for the Department to apply to the Tribunal for deciding appeals on merits in specific cases. These cases are those where objections were raised before the Tribunal, either in the appeal memo or at the hearing, specifically contending that an appeal was covered by an exception to the monetary limit, and despite such objections, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without dealing with the contention. The Court expected the Tribunal to consider these broad parameters when applying relevant circulars. Regarding the additional issue of excise duty on closing stock, the Court did not give any finding as the Tribunal had dismissed the appeals on low tax effect and the departmental representative had not raised any objection on this issue.

The High Court dismissed all the Tax Appeals. However, it reserved liberty for the Department to apply to the Tribunal for deciding appeals on merits in specific cases. These cases are those where objections were raised before the Tribunal, either in the appeal memo or at the hearing, specifically contending that an appeal was covered by an exception to the monetary limit, and despite such objections, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without dealing with the contention. The Court expected the Tribunal to consider these broad parameters when applying relevant circulars. Regarding the additional issue of excise duty on closing stock, the Court did not give any finding as the Tribunal had dismissed the appeals on low tax effect and the departmental representative had not raised any objection on this issue.

The High Court held that while the ITAT is not bound to decide an appeal on merits merely because it is filed by the Department in contravention of a circular, due weightage must be given to such circulars. The newly inserted Section 268A(4) of the Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider these circulars. Filing an appeal is a statutory right, but it can be regulated by the Board through instructions. The Court clarified that if the departmental representative raises objections before the Tribunal regarding exceptions to the circular or the interpretation of the law, and the Tribunal dismisses the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without dealing with these objections, the Department may apply to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. However, if no such objections were raised, the Department has "missed the bus" and cannot seek a second inning. The Court dismissed all appeals, reserving liberty for the Department to apply to the Tribunal in specific cases where objections were raised and not addressed. For Tax Appeal Nos. 496, 545, 547, 548, 550 and 704 of 2007, concerning the valuation of closing stock including excise duty, no finding was given as the appeals were dismissed on tax effect and no objection was raised by the departmental representative on this issue.

The High Court dismissed all the Tax Appeals. The Court held that while the Tribunal is generally bound by CBDT instructions regarding monetary limits for filing appeals, it must also consider exceptions, particularly when a substantial question of law of importance is involved, or the same question of law arises repeatedly. The Court noted that if the departmental representative failed to raise objections regarding the applicability of exceptions or the existence of substantial questions of law before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect, the Department would have "missed the bus" and would not be granted a "second inning." However, in cases where such objections were raised and the Tribunal still dismissed the appeal on low tax effect without dealing with the objections, the Court would show indulgence and permit the Department to move an appropriate application before the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. The Court also acknowledged that Section 268A(4) of the Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such Circulars. The Court explicitly left undecided a separate substantial question of law concerning the valuation of closing stock, as the Tribunal had not decided it on merits and the departmental representative had not raised any objection on that issue.

The High Court dismissed all the Tax Appeals. The Court held that while the Tribunal is generally bound by CBDT instructions regarding monetary limits for filing appeals, it must also consider exceptions, particularly when a substantial question of law of importance is involved, or the same question of law arises repeatedly. The Court noted that if the departmental representative failed to raise objections regarding the applicability of exceptions or the existence of substantial questions of law before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect, the Department would have "missed the bus" and would not be granted a "second inning." However, in cases where such objections were raised and the Tribunal still dismissed the appeal on low tax effect without dealing with the objections, the Court would show indulgence and permit the Department to move an appropriate application before the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. The Court also acknowledged that Section 268A(4) of the Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such Circulars. The Court explicitly left undecided a separate substantial question of law concerning the valuation of closing stock, as the Tribunal had not decided it on merits and the departmental representative had not raised any objection on that issue.

The High Court dismissed all the Tax Appeals. The Court held that while the Tribunal is generally bound by CBDT instructions regarding monetary limits for filing appeals, it must also consider exceptions, particularly when a substantial question of law of importance is involved, or the same question of law arises repeatedly. The Court noted that if the departmental representative failed to raise objections regarding the applicability of exceptions or the existence of substantial questions of law before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect, the Department would have "missed the bus" and would not be granted a "second inning." However, in cases where such objections were raised and the Tribunal still dismissed the appeal on low tax effect without dealing with the objections, the Court would show indulgence and permit the Department to move an appropriate application before the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. The Court also acknowledged that Section 268A(4) of the Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such Circulars. The Court explicitly left undecided a separate substantial question of law concerning the valuation of closing stock, as the Tribunal had not decided it on merits and the departmental representative had not raised any objection on that issue.

The High Court held that while CBDT circulars regulating the filing of appeals based on monetary limits are generally to be given due weight, they do not take away the statutory right to appeal. The Court noted that Section 268A(4) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. However, if a substantial question of law of importance is involved, or if the issue is repeatedly arising, or if it is covered by a High Court or Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits. The Court clarified that if the departmental representative did not raise objections regarding the applicability of exceptions to the circular at the time of hearing before the Tribunal, the Department might have 'missed the bus'. However, in cases where objections were raised and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on low tax effect without dealing with these objections, indulgence would be shown. The Court dismissed all the Tax Appeals, reserving liberty for the Department to apply to the Tribunal to decide appeals on merits only in those specific cases where objections were raised before the Tribunal and not dealt with. Regarding a separate question of law concerning excise duty on closing stock, the Court did not give a finding as the Tribunal had not decided it on merits, and no objection was raised by the departmental representative on this issue.

The High Court held that while CBDT circulars regulating the filing of appeals based on monetary limits are generally to be given due weight, they do not take away the statutory right to appeal. The Court noted that Section 268A(4) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. However, if a substantial question of law of importance is involved, or if the issue is repeatedly arising, or if it is covered by a High Court or Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits. The Court clarified that if the departmental representative did not raise objections regarding the applicability of exceptions to the circular at the time of hearing before the Tribunal, the Department might have 'missed the bus'. However, in cases where objections were raised and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on low tax effect without dealing with these objections, indulgence would be shown. The Court dismissed all the Tax Appeals, reserving liberty for the Department to apply to the Tribunal to decide appeals on merits only in those specific cases where objections were raised before the Tribunal and not dealt with. Regarding a separate question of law concerning excise duty on closing stock, the Court did not give a finding as the Tribunal had not decided it on merits, and no objection was raised by the departmental representative on this issue.

The High Court held that while CBDT circulars regulating the filing of appeals based on monetary limits are generally to be given due weight, they do not take away the statutory right to appeal. The Court noted that Section 268A(4) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. However, if a substantial question of law of importance is involved, or if the issue is repeatedly arising, or if it is covered by a High Court or Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits. The Court clarified that if the departmental representative did not raise objections regarding the applicability of exceptions to the circular at the time of hearing before the Tribunal, the Department might have 'missed the bus'. However, in cases where objections were raised and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on low tax effect without dealing with these objections, indulgence would be shown. The Court dismissed all the Tax Appeals, reserving liberty for the Department to apply to the Tribunal to decide appeals on merits only in those specific cases where objections were raised before the Tribunal and not dealt with. Regarding a separate question of law concerning excise duty on closing stock, the Court did not give a finding as the Tribunal had not decided it on merits, and no objection was raised by the departmental representative on this issue.

The High Court held that while the ITAT is not bound to decide an appeal on merits solely because it is filed by the Department in contravention of a circular, due weightage must be given to such circulars. The newly inserted Section 268A(4) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The Court acknowledged that filing an appeal is a statutory right but can be regulated by the Board through instructions. However, if the Supreme Court or the territorial High Court has declared the law, the Tribunal must follow that declaration, and the departmental representative must bring such decisions to the Tribunal's notice. The Court dismissed all the appeals, reserving liberty for the Department to apply to the Tribunal to decide appeals on merits only in cases where objections were raised before the Tribunal regarding exceptions to the low tax effect rule, and despite these objections, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without dealing with the contention. For other appeals, including those with an additional question regarding excise duty on closing stock, no finding was given as the Tribunal had not decided them on merits.

The High Court held that while the ITAT is not bound to decide an appeal on merits solely because it is filed by the Department in contravention of a circular, due weightage must be given to such circulars. The newly inserted Section 268A(4) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The Court acknowledged that filing an appeal is a statutory right but can be regulated by the Board through instructions. However, if the Supreme Court or the territorial High Court has declared the law, the Tribunal must follow that declaration, and the departmental representative must bring such decisions to the Tribunal's notice. The Court dismissed all the appeals, reserving liberty for the Department to apply to the Tribunal to decide appeals on merits only in cases where objections were raised before the Tribunal regarding exceptions to the low tax effect rule, and despite these objections, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without dealing with the contention. For other appeals, including those with an additional question regarding excise duty on closing stock, no finding was given as the Tribunal had not decided them on merits.

The High Court held that while the Tribunal is not bound to decide an appeal on merits solely because it is filed by the Department in contravention of a circular, due weightage must be given to such circulars. The newly inserted Section 268A(4) of the Income-Tax Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The Court clarified that filing an appeal is a statutory right, but it can be regulated by the Board through instructions. However, if the Supreme Court or the territorial High Court has declared the law on a question, the Tribunal cannot ignore that decision in favour of a monetary limit circular. The Court emphasized that an objection regarding the applicability of a circular or the existence of an exception must be raised by the departmental representative before the Tribunal. If such objections were raised and not dealt with by the Tribunal, which then dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect, the Department would be permitted to move an appropriate application before the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. In cases where no such objections were raised, the Department has "missed the bus." The Court dismissed all the appeals, reserving liberty for the Department to apply to the Tribunal for deciding appeals on merits only in those cases where objections were raised before the Tribunal and not dealt with.

The High Court dismissed the Tax Appeals. It held that while filing an appeal is a statutory right, it can be regulated by the Board through instructions and circulars, as recognized by Section 268A(1) of the Act. The Tribunal is not bound to decide an appeal on merits simply because it was filed in contravention of a circular; due weightage must be given to the circular. However, if a substantial question of law of importance is involved, or the issue is repeatedly arising, or is covered by a High Court or Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits. The Court clarified that if the departmental representative did not raise objections before the Tribunal regarding the applicability of exceptions to the circulars, and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on low tax effect, the Department has missed its opportunity. In such cases, the Department can apply to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. The Court also noted that for specific appeals (Nos. 496, 545, 547, 548, 550, and 704 of 2007) concerning the valuation of closing stock, no finding was given as the Tribunal had dismissed them on low tax effect without the departmental representative raising objections on that specific issue.

The High Court dismissed the Tax Appeals. It held that while filing an appeal is a statutory right, it can be regulated by the Board through instructions and circulars, as recognized by Section 268A(1) of the Act. The Tribunal is not bound to decide an appeal on merits simply because it was filed in contravention of a circular; due weightage must be given to the circular. However, if a substantial question of law of importance is involved, or the issue is repeatedly arising, or is covered by a High Court or Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits. The Court clarified that if the departmental representative did not raise objections before the Tribunal regarding the applicability of exceptions to the circulars, and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on low tax effect, the Department has missed its opportunity. In such cases, the Department can apply to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. The Court also noted that for specific appeals (Nos. 496, 545, 547, 548, 550, and 704 of 2007) concerning the valuation of closing stock, no finding was given as the Tribunal had dismissed them on low tax effect without the departmental representative raising objections on that specific issue.

The High Court dismissed the Tax Appeals. It held that while filing an appeal is a statutory right, it can be regulated by the Board through instructions and circulars, as recognized by Section 268A(1) of the Act. The Tribunal is not bound to decide an appeal on merits simply because it was filed in contravention of a circular; due weightage must be given to the circular. However, if a substantial question of law of importance is involved, or the issue is repeatedly arising, or is covered by a High Court or Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits. The Court clarified that if the departmental representative did not raise objections before the Tribunal regarding the applicability of exceptions to the circulars, and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on low tax effect, the Department has missed its opportunity. In such cases, the Department can apply to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. The Court also noted that for specific appeals (Nos. 496, 545, 547, 548, 550, and 704 of 2007) concerning the valuation of closing stock, no finding was given as the Tribunal had dismissed them on low tax effect without the departmental representative raising objections on that specific issue.

The High Court dismissed the Tax Appeals. It held that while filing an appeal is a statutory right, it can be regulated by the Board through instructions and circulars, as recognized by Section 268A(1) of the Act. The Tribunal is not bound to decide an appeal on merits simply because it was filed in contravention of a circular; due weightage must be given to the circular. However, if a substantial question of law of importance is involved, or the issue is repeatedly arising, or is covered by a High Court or Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits. The Court clarified that if the departmental representative did not raise objections before the Tribunal regarding the applicability of exceptions to the circulars, and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on low tax effect, the Department has missed its opportunity. In such cases, the Department can apply to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. The Court also noted that for specific appeals (Nos. 496, 545, 547, 548, 550, and 704 of 2007) concerning the valuation of closing stock, no finding was given as the Tribunal had dismissed them on low tax effect without the departmental representative raising objections on that specific issue.

The High Court dismissed the Tax Appeals. It held that while filing an appeal is a statutory right, it can be regulated by the Board through instructions and circulars, as recognized by Section 268A(1) of the Act. The Tribunal is not bound to decide an appeal on merits simply because it was filed in contravention of a circular; due weightage must be given to the circular. However, if a substantial question of law of importance is involved, or the issue is repeatedly arising, or is covered by a High Court or Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits. The Court clarified that if the departmental representative did not raise objections before the Tribunal regarding the applicability of exceptions to the circulars, and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on low tax effect, the Department has missed its opportunity. In such cases, the Department can apply to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. The Court also noted that for specific appeals (Nos. 496, 545, 547, 548, 550, and 704 of 2007) concerning the valuation of closing stock, no finding was given as the Tribunal had dismissed them on low tax effect without the departmental representative raising objections on that specific issue.

The High Court dismissed the appeals. It held that while the ITAT should give due weight to CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals, it is not bound to decide on merits solely based on such circulars if substantial questions of law are involved or if the circular itself requires interpretation. The Court acknowledged that Section 268A(4) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. However, the Court clarified that if the departmental representative fails to raise objections regarding the applicability of the circular or its exceptions before the Tribunal, the Department may have "missed the bus" and cannot seek a second inning. The Court reserved liberty for the Department to apply to the Tribunal for deciding appeals on merits only in those specific cases where objections were raised before the Tribunal (either in the appeal memo or at the hearing) concerning a particular exception, and despite these objections, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without dealing with the contention. The Court also noted that for certain appeals (Tax Appeal Nos. 496, 545, 547, 548, 550 and 704 of 2007), an additional substantial question of law regarding the valuation of closing stock was raised, but since the Tribunal had not decided this issue on merits and no objection was raised by the departmental representative, no finding was given on this specific issue.

The High Court held that while the ITAT is bound by CBDT instructions regarding monetary limits for filing appeals, it must also consider exceptions. These exceptions include cases involving substantial questions of law of importance, recurring questions of law, or where the issue is covered by the judgment of the territorial High Court or the Supreme Court. The Court noted that if the departmental representative fails to raise objections regarding the applicability of exceptions at the time of hearing, the Department may have "missed the bus." However, in cases where objections were raised but not dealt with by the Tribunal, and the appeal was dismissed solely on low tax effect, indulgence may be shown. The Court also acknowledged the newly inserted Section 268A(4) making it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The Court dismissed the appeals, reserving liberty for the Department to apply to the Tribunal for deciding appeals on merits only in those specific cases where objections were raised before the Tribunal and not dealt with, despite the appeal being dismissed on low tax effect. For a separate issue regarding excise duty on closing stock, the Court did not give a finding as it was not decided on merits by the Tribunal and no objection was raised by the departmental representative.

The High Court held that while the ITAT is bound by CBDT instructions regarding monetary limits for filing appeals, it must also consider exceptions. These exceptions include cases involving substantial questions of law of importance, recurring questions of law, or where the issue is covered by the judgment of the territorial High Court or the Supreme Court. The Court noted that if the departmental representative fails to raise objections regarding the applicability of exceptions at the time of hearing, the Department may have "missed the bus." However, in cases where objections were raised but not dealt with by the Tribunal, and the appeal was dismissed solely on low tax effect, indulgence may be shown. The Court also acknowledged the newly inserted Section 268A(4) making it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The Court dismissed the appeals, reserving liberty for the Department to apply to the Tribunal for deciding appeals on merits only in those specific cases where objections were raised before the Tribunal and not dealt with, despite the appeal being dismissed on low tax effect. For a separate issue regarding excise duty on closing stock, the Court did not give a finding as it was not decided on merits by the Tribunal and no objection was raised by the departmental representative.

The High Court dismissed the Tax Appeals. It held that while the ITAT should give due weight to CBDT circulars, it is not bound to decide an appeal on merits solely because it was filed in contravention of a circular. The newly inserted Section 268A(4) makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The filing of an appeal is a statutory right, but it can be regulated by the Board through instructions. This does not take away the right to appeal. However, if the Supreme Court or territorial High Court has declared the law, the Tribunal must follow that declaration, and the departmental representative must bring such decisions to the Tribunal's notice and raise objections. The Court reserved liberty for the Department to apply to the Tribunal to decide appeals on merits only in those specific cases where objections were raised before the Tribunal (either in the appeal memo or at the hearing) regarding exceptions to the circular, and despite these objections, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without dealing with the contention. For other cases, the appeals were dismissed.

The High Court dismissed the Tax Appeals. The Court held that while the Tribunal is not bound to decide an appeal on merits simply because it was filed in contravention of a circular, due weightage must be given to such circulars. The newly inserted Section 268A(4) of the Income-Tax Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The Court clarified that filing an appeal is a statutory right, but it can be regulated by the Board through instructions. However, if a substantial question of law of importance is involved, or if the issue is covered by a judgment of the territorial High Court or the Supreme Court, the Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits. The Court noted that if the departmental representative fails to raise objections regarding the applicability of a circular or its exceptions at the time of hearing, the Department may have "missed the bus." However, in cases where objections were raised and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without dealing with these objections, the Department could apply to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. The Court also noted that for certain appeals, an additional substantial question of law regarding the valuation of closing stock was not decided by the Tribunal, and no finding was given on this issue as the departmental representative had not raised any objection.

The High Court dismissed the Tax Appeals. The Court held that while the Tribunal is not bound to decide an appeal on merits simply because it was filed in contravention of a circular, due weightage must be given to such circulars. The newly inserted Section 268A(4) of the Income-Tax Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The Court clarified that filing an appeal is a statutory right, but it can be regulated by the Board through instructions. However, if a substantial question of law of importance is involved, or if the issue is covered by a judgment of the territorial High Court or the Supreme Court, the Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits. The Court noted that if the departmental representative fails to raise objections regarding the applicability of a circular or its exceptions at the time of hearing, the Department may have "missed the bus." However, in cases where objections were raised and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without dealing with these objections, the Department could apply to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. The Court also noted that for certain appeals, an additional substantial question of law regarding the valuation of closing stock was not decided by the Tribunal, and no finding was given on this issue as the departmental representative had not raised any objection.

The High Court dismissed the Tax Appeals. The Court held that while the Tribunal is not bound to decide an appeal on merits simply because it was filed in contravention of a circular, due weightage must be given to such circulars. The newly inserted Section 268A(4) of the Income-Tax Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The Court clarified that filing an appeal is a statutory right, but it can be regulated by the Board through instructions. However, if a substantial question of law of importance is involved, or if the issue is covered by a judgment of the territorial High Court or the Supreme Court, the Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits. The Court noted that if the departmental representative fails to raise objections regarding the applicability of a circular or its exceptions at the time of hearing, the Department may have "missed the bus." However, in cases where objections were raised and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without dealing with these objections, the Department could apply to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. The Court also noted that for certain appeals, an additional substantial question of law regarding the valuation of closing stock was not decided by the Tribunal, and no finding was given on this issue as the departmental representative had not raised any objection.

The High Court dismissed the Tax Appeals. The Court held that while the Tribunal is not bound to decide an appeal on merits simply because it was filed in contravention of a circular, due weightage must be given to such circulars. The newly inserted Section 268A(4) of the Income-Tax Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The Court clarified that filing an appeal is a statutory right, but it can be regulated by the Board through instructions. However, if a substantial question of law of importance is involved, or if the issue is covered by a judgment of the territorial High Court or the Supreme Court, the Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits. The Court noted that if the departmental representative fails to raise objections regarding the applicability of a circular or its exceptions at the time of hearing, the Department may have "missed the bus." However, in cases where objections were raised and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without dealing with these objections, the Department could apply to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. The Court also noted that for certain appeals, an additional substantial question of law regarding the valuation of closing stock was not decided by the Tribunal, and no finding was given on this issue as the departmental representative had not raised any objection.

The High Court dismissed the Tax Appeals. The Court held that while the Tribunal is not bound to decide an appeal on merits simply because it was filed in contravention of a circular, due weightage must be given to such circulars. The newly inserted Section 268A(4) of the Income-Tax Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The Court clarified that filing an appeal is a statutory right, but it can be regulated by the Board through instructions. However, if a substantial question of law of importance is involved, or if the issue is covered by a judgment of the territorial High Court or the Supreme Court, the Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits. The Court noted that if the departmental representative fails to raise objections regarding the applicability of a circular or its exceptions at the time of hearing, the Department may have "missed the bus." However, in cases where objections were raised and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without dealing with these objections, the Department could apply to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. The Court also noted that for certain appeals, an additional substantial question of law regarding the valuation of closing stock was not decided by the Tribunal, and no finding was given on this issue as the departmental representative had not raised any objection.

The High Court dismissed the Tax Appeals. The Court held that while the Tribunal is not bound to decide an appeal on merits simply because it was filed in contravention of a circular, due weightage must be given to such circulars. The newly inserted Section 268A(4) of the Income-Tax Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The Court clarified that filing an appeal is a statutory right, but it can be regulated by the Board through instructions. However, if a substantial question of law of importance is involved, or if the issue is covered by a judgment of the territorial High Court or the Supreme Court, the Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits. The Court noted that if the departmental representative fails to raise objections regarding the applicability of a circular or its exceptions at the time of hearing, the Department may have "missed the bus." However, in cases where objections were raised and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without dealing with these objections, the Department could apply to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. The Court also noted that for certain appeals, an additional substantial question of law regarding the valuation of closing stock was not decided by the Tribunal, and no finding was given on this issue as the departmental representative had not raised any objection.

The High Court dismissed the Tax Appeals. The Court held that while the Tribunal is not bound to decide an appeal on merits simply because it was filed in contravention of a circular, due weightage must be given to such circulars. The newly inserted Section 268A(4) of the Income-Tax Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The Court clarified that filing an appeal is a statutory right, but it can be regulated by the Board through instructions. However, if a substantial question of law of importance is involved, or if the issue is covered by a judgment of the territorial High Court or the Supreme Court, the Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits. The Court noted that if the departmental representative fails to raise objections regarding the applicability of a circular or its exceptions at the time of hearing, the Department may have "missed the bus." However, in cases where objections were raised and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without dealing with these objections, the Department could apply to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. The Court also noted that for certain appeals, an additional substantial question of law regarding the valuation of closing stock was not decided by the Tribunal, and no finding was given on this issue as the departmental representative had not raised any objection.

The High Court dismissed the Tax Appeals. The Court held that while the Tribunal is not bound to decide an appeal on merits simply because it was filed in contravention of a circular, due weightage must be given to such circulars. The newly inserted Section 268A(4) of the Income-Tax Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The Court clarified that filing an appeal is a statutory right, but it can be regulated by the Board through instructions. However, if a substantial question of law of importance is involved, or if the issue is covered by a judgment of the territorial High Court or the Supreme Court, the Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits. The Court noted that if the departmental representative fails to raise objections regarding the applicability of a circular or its exceptions at the time of hearing, the Department may have "missed the bus." However, in cases where objections were raised and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without dealing with these objections, the Department could apply to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. The Court also noted that for certain appeals, an additional substantial question of law regarding the valuation of closing stock was not decided by the Tribunal, and no finding was given on this issue as the departmental representative had not raised any objection.

The High Court dismissed the Tax Appeals. The Court held that while the Tribunal is not bound to decide an appeal on merits simply because it was filed in contravention of a circular, due weightage must be given to such circulars. The newly inserted Section 268A(4) of the Income-Tax Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The Court clarified that filing an appeal is a statutory right, but it can be regulated by the Board through instructions. However, if a substantial question of law of importance is involved, or if the issue is covered by a judgment of the territorial High Court or the Supreme Court, the Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits. The Court noted that if the departmental representative fails to raise objections regarding the applicability of a circular or its exceptions at the time of hearing, the Department may have "missed the bus." However, in cases where objections were raised and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without dealing with these objections, the Department could apply to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. The Court also noted that for certain appeals, an additional substantial question of law regarding the valuation of closing stock was not decided by the Tribunal, and no finding was given on this issue as the departmental representative had not raised any objection.

The High Court dismissed all the Tax Appeals. It held that while the ITAT should give due weight to CBDT circulars, it is not bound to decide an appeal on merits solely because it was filed in contravention of a circular. The court noted that Section 268A(4) of the Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The court clarified that the filing of an appeal is a statutory right, but it can be regulated by the Board through instructions. However, if the Supreme Court or the territorial High Court has declared the law, the Tribunal must follow that declaration. The court emphasized that the departmental representative must raise objections regarding the applicability of circulars or exceptions before the Tribunal. The court reserved liberty for the Department to apply to the Tribunal to decide appeals on merits only in cases where objections were raised before the Tribunal (either in the appeal memo or at the hearing) regarding an exception to the circular, and despite these objections, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without dealing with the contention. For other cases, the appeals were dismissed. The court did not give a finding on a separate substantial question of law concerning the valuation of closing stock, as the Tribunal had not decided it on merits and no objection was raised by the departmental representative.

The High Court dismissed all the Tax Appeals. It held that while the ITAT should give due weight to CBDT circulars, it is not bound to decide an appeal on merits solely because it was filed in contravention of a circular. The court noted that Section 268A(4) of the Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The court clarified that the filing of an appeal is a statutory right, but it can be regulated by the Board through instructions. However, if the Supreme Court or the territorial High Court has declared the law, the Tribunal must follow that declaration. The court emphasized that the departmental representative must raise objections regarding the applicability of circulars or exceptions before the Tribunal. The court reserved liberty for the Department to apply to the Tribunal to decide appeals on merits only in cases where objections were raised before the Tribunal (either in the appeal memo or at the hearing) regarding an exception to the circular, and despite these objections, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without dealing with the contention. For other cases, the appeals were dismissed. The court did not give a finding on a separate substantial question of law concerning the valuation of closing stock, as the Tribunal had not decided it on merits and no objection was raised by the departmental representative.

The High Court held that while the ITAT is not bound to decide an appeal on merits simply because it was filed in contravention of a CBDT circular, due weightage must be given to such circulars. The newly inserted Section 268A(4) of the Income-Tax Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider these circulars. Filing an appeal is a statutory right, but it can be regulated by the Board through instructions. This does not take away the right to appeal. However, if the Supreme Court or the territorial High Court has declared the law, the Tribunal must follow that declaration, and the departmental representative must bring such decisions to the Tribunal's notice and raise objections. In cases where objections were raised before the Tribunal regarding exceptions to the monetary limit, and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on low tax effect without addressing these objections, the Department is permitted to apply to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. All other appeals are dismissed. For certain appeals (Tax Appeal Nos. 496, 545, 547, 548, 550, and 704 of 2007), the issue regarding excise duty on closing stock was left undecided as the Tribunal had not adjudicated it on merits and no objection was raised by the departmental representative.

The High Court held that while the ITAT is not bound to decide appeals on merits solely because an appeal is filed in contravention of CBDT circulars, due weightage must be given to such circulars. The newly inserted Section 268A(4) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider these circulars. The Court clarified that filing an appeal is a statutory right, but it can be regulated by the Board through instructions. However, when the Supreme Court or the territorial High Court has declared the law, the Tribunal must follow that declaration, and the departmental representative must draw the Tribunal's attention to such decisions. The Court dismissed all the appeals, reserving liberty for the Department to apply to the Tribunal to decide appeals on merits only in cases where objections were raised before the Tribunal (either in the appeal memo or during hearing) regarding exceptions to the low tax effect rule, and despite these objections, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without dealing with the contention. The Court did not give any finding on the issue of excise duty on closing stock as it was not decided on merits by the Tribunal.

The High Court dismissed all the Tax Appeals. It held that while the ITAT should give due weight to CBDT circulars, it is not bound to decide appeals on merits solely because an appeal is filed in contravention of a circular. The newly inserted Section 268A(4) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The Court clarified that filing an appeal is a statutory right, but it can be regulated by the Board through instructions. However, if the Tribunal dismisses an appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without considering objections raised by the departmental representative regarding exceptions to the circular, the Department is permitted to apply to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. For appeals where such objections were raised and not dealt with, liberty was granted to the Department to move the Tribunal. For other appeals, including one concerning excise duty on closing stock, the appeals were dismissed as the Tribunal had not decided them on merits and no objections were raised by the departmental representative.

The High Court dismissed all the Tax Appeals. The Court held that while the ITAT should generally give due weight to CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals, it is not bound to decide an appeal on merits solely because it was filed in contravention of such a circular. The Court acknowledged that filing an appeal is a statutory right, but it can be regulated by the Board through instructions and circulars, as recognized by Section 268A(1) of the Act. However, the Court clarified that if the territorial High Court or Supreme Court has declared the law on a question, the Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits in accordance with that law, and not be hindered by monetary limits. The Court emphasized that the departmental representative must raise objections regarding the applicability of circulars or highlight exceptions and relevant legal precedents at the time of hearing. If such objections were raised before the Tribunal and not dealt with, and the appeal was dismissed solely on low tax effect, the Department could apply to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. In cases where no such objections were raised, the Department had "missed the bus." Regarding a specific additional question of law concerning excise duty on closing stock, the Court did not give a finding as the Tribunal had not decided it on merits and no objection was raised by the departmental representative. The appeals were dismissed subject to this clarification.

The High Court dismissed all the Tax Appeals. The Court held that while the ITAT should generally give due weight to CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals, it is not bound to decide an appeal on merits solely because it was filed in contravention of such a circular. The Court acknowledged that filing an appeal is a statutory right, but it can be regulated by the Board through instructions and circulars, as recognized by Section 268A(1) of the Act. However, the Court clarified that if the territorial High Court or Supreme Court has declared the law on a question, the Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits in accordance with that law, and not be hindered by monetary limits. The Court emphasized that the departmental representative must raise objections regarding the applicability of circulars or highlight exceptions and relevant legal precedents at the time of hearing. If such objections were raised before the Tribunal and not dealt with, and the appeal was dismissed solely on low tax effect, the Department could apply to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. In cases where no such objections were raised, the Department had "missed the bus." Regarding a specific additional question of law concerning excise duty on closing stock, the Court did not give a finding as the Tribunal had not decided it on merits and no objection was raised by the departmental representative. The appeals were dismissed subject to this clarification.

The High Court dismissed all the Tax Appeals. The Court held that while the ITAT should generally give due weight to CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals, it is not bound to decide an appeal on merits solely because it was filed in contravention of such a circular. The Court acknowledged that filing an appeal is a statutory right, but it can be regulated by the Board through instructions and circulars, as recognized by Section 268A(1) of the Act. However, the Court clarified that if the territorial High Court or Supreme Court has declared the law on a question, the Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits in accordance with that law, and not be hindered by monetary limits. The Court emphasized that the departmental representative must raise objections regarding the applicability of circulars or highlight exceptions and relevant legal precedents at the time of hearing. If such objections were raised before the Tribunal and not dealt with, and the appeal was dismissed solely on low tax effect, the Department could apply to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. In cases where no such objections were raised, the Department had "missed the bus." Regarding a specific additional question of law concerning excise duty on closing stock, the Court did not give a finding as the Tribunal had not decided it on merits and no objection was raised by the departmental representative. The appeals were dismissed subject to this clarification.

The High Court dismissed the Tax Appeals. It held that while the ITAT should give due weight to CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals, it is not bound to decide appeals on merits solely because the Department filed them in contravention of such circulars. The newly inserted Section 268A(4) of the Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The Court clarified that filing an appeal is a statutory right but can be regulated by the Board through instructions. However, if the territorial High Court or Supreme Court has declared the law, the Tribunal must follow that declaration, not just the monetary limit circular. The Court emphasized that the departmental representative must raise objections regarding the applicability of exceptions to the circulars or point out binding judicial precedents. If such objections were raised before the Tribunal and not dealt with, leading to dismissal solely on low tax effect, the Department could apply to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. Otherwise, the appeals were dismissed. For specific appeals (Nos. 496, 545, 547, 548, 550, and 704 of 2007) concerning the valuation of closing stock, the Court did not give a finding as the Tribunal had not decided this issue on merits, and no objection was raised by the departmental representative.

The High Court dismissed the Tax Appeals. It held that while the ITAT should give due weight to CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals, it is not bound to decide appeals on merits solely because the Department filed them in contravention of such circulars. The newly inserted Section 268A(4) of the Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The Court clarified that filing an appeal is a statutory right but can be regulated by the Board through instructions. However, if the territorial High Court or Supreme Court has declared the law, the Tribunal must follow that declaration, not just the monetary limit circular. The Court emphasized that the departmental representative must raise objections regarding the applicability of exceptions to the circulars or point out binding judicial precedents. If such objections were raised before the Tribunal and not dealt with, leading to dismissal solely on low tax effect, the Department could apply to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. Otherwise, the appeals were dismissed. For specific appeals (Nos. 496, 545, 547, 548, 550, and 704 of 2007) concerning the valuation of closing stock, the Court did not give a finding as the Tribunal had not decided this issue on merits, and no objection was raised by the departmental representative.

The High Court dismissed the Tax Appeals. It held that while the ITAT should give due weight to CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals, it is not bound to decide appeals on merits solely because the Department filed them in contravention of such circulars. The newly inserted Section 268A(4) of the Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The Court clarified that filing an appeal is a statutory right but can be regulated by the Board through instructions. However, if the territorial High Court or Supreme Court has declared the law, the Tribunal must follow that declaration, not just the monetary limit circular. The Court emphasized that the departmental representative must raise objections regarding the applicability of exceptions to the circulars or point out binding judicial precedents. If such objections were raised before the Tribunal and not dealt with, leading to dismissal solely on low tax effect, the Department could apply to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. Otherwise, the appeals were dismissed. For specific appeals (Nos. 496, 545, 547, 548, 550, and 704 of 2007) concerning the valuation of closing stock, the Court did not give a finding as the Tribunal had not decided this issue on merits, and no objection was raised by the departmental representative.

The High Court held that while the ITAT is not bound to decide an appeal on merits simply because it was filed in contravention of a CBDT circular, due weightage must be given to such circulars. The newly inserted Section 268A(4) of the Income-Tax Act makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The Court clarified that filing an appeal is a statutory right but can be regulated by the Board through instructions. However, if a substantial question of law of importance is involved, or if the issue is covered by a judgment of the territorial High Court or the Supreme Court, the Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits. The Court dismissed all the appeals but reserved liberty for the Department to apply to the Tribunal to decide appeals on merits in cases where objections were raised before the Tribunal (either in the appeal memo or at the hearing) regarding exceptions to the monetary limit, and despite these objections, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect. For other matters, the appeals were dismissed. An additional substantial question of law regarding the valuation of closing stock was not decided as the Tribunal had dismissed the appeals on the ground of low tax effect without deciding the issue on merits, and the departmental representative had not raised any objection on this issue.

The High Court dismissed the Revenue's tax appeals. It held that while the Tribunal should give due weight to CBDT circulars, it is not bound to decide appeals solely on merits if the circular is contravened, especially with the insertion of Section 268A(4) of the Act, which makes it obligatory for the Tribunal to consider such circulars. The Court acknowledged that filing an appeal is a statutory right but can be regulated by the Board. However, if the Tribunal dismisses an appeal on low tax effect without considering objections raised by the departmental representative regarding exceptions to the circular or substantial questions of law, the Department can apply to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. For appeals where such objections were raised and not dealt with, the Court reserved liberty for the Department to apply to the Tribunal. The Court did not decide on the issue of excise duty on closing stock as it was not adjudicated by the Tribunal due to dismissal on low tax effect, and no objection was raised by the departmental representative on this specific issue.

The High Court dismissed all the tax appeals filed by the Revenue. However, it reserved liberty for the Department to apply to the Tribunal to decide appeals on merits in specific cases. These cases are those where objections were raised before the Tribunal, either in the appeal memo or during the hearing, specifically contending that a particular appeal was covered by an exception to the CBDT circulars. If, despite such an objection, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect without dealing with the contention, the Department can seek a decision on merits. The Court emphasized that while CBDT circulars are important and Section 268A(4) of the Act makes them obligatory to consider, the Tribunal must decide appeals on merits if a substantial question of law of importance is involved, or if the issue is covered by a High Court or Supreme Court judgment. The Court noted that if departmental representatives do not raise objections regarding the applicability of circulars or exceptions at the time of hearing, they 'missed the bus' and cannot seek a second inning. The Court did not give any finding on the additional substantial question of law concerning the valuation of closing stock, as the Tribunal had dismissed the appeals on the ground of low tax effect without deciding this issue on merits, and the departmental representative had not raised any objection on this point.