Gujarat High Court Judgments — 2018

The High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in quashing the assessment proceedings under Section 153C. The Court reasoned that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation) and the Gujarat High Court's decision in Gunjan Girishbhai Mehta (affirmed by the Supreme Court), evidence obtained as a result of an illegal or invalid search or seizure cannot be shut out unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in the Constitution or other law. Therefore, merely because the search authorization and proceedings against the searched person (Dr. Rajesh Rajora) were quashed, the evidence obtained during that search could not be shut out for initiating proceedings under Section 153C against the assessee. The Court acknowledged the assessee's argument regarding Section 148 but found it unpersuasive in light of the concluded controversy by the cited precedents. The appeals were allowed, and the question of law was answered in favour of the revenue. The cross objections were partly rejected, and the matters were restored to the Tribunal for decision on merits.

The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in quashing the assessment proceedings under section 153C of the Act solely on the ground that the search authorization under section 132 of the Act was quashed in the case of the searched person. The Court reasoned that unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in the Constitution or other law, evidence obtained as a result of an illegal or invalid search or seizure cannot be shut out. This principle, as laid down in Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation) and affirmed in Gunjan Girishbhai Mehta v. Director of Investigation (Supreme Court), applies to proceedings under section 153C as well. The Court noted that the validity of the search authorization is relevant for the assessment of the searched person under section 153A, but not necessarily for proceedings against other persons under section 153C, provided the conditions for section 153C are met. The Court found that the controversy was concluded by the decisions in Pooran Mal and Gunjan Girishbhai Mehta. Therefore, the appeals were allowed, and the question of law was answered in favor of the revenue. The cross objections filed by the assessee were partly rejected, and the matters were restored to the Tribunal for decision on merits.

The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in quashing the assessment proceedings under section 153C. The Court reasoned that unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in the Constitution or other law, evidence obtained as a result of an illegal or invalid search or seizure cannot be shut out. This principle, established in Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection and Investigation, applies to material seized belonging to a person other than the searched person, as contemplated under section 153C. The Court further relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Gunjan Girishbhai Mehta, which held that if the original search warrant is invalid, consequential action under section 158BD (which is in pari materia with section 153C) would not be rendered invalid. The Court noted that the assessee participated in the assessment proceedings, and information discovered during the search, capable of generating satisfaction for issuing a notice under section 153C, cannot become irrelevant. Therefore, the appeals were allowed, and the question was answered in favour of the revenue. The cross-objections were partly rejected, and the matters were restored to the Tribunal for decision on merits.

The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in quashing the assessment proceedings under Section 153C. The Court reasoned that, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation) and the Gujarat High Court's decision in Gunjan Girishbhai Mehta (affirmed by the Supreme Court), evidence obtained as a result of an illegal or invalid search or seizure cannot be shut out unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in the Constitution or other law. Therefore, merely because the search authorization and proceedings against the searched person (Dr. Rajesh Rajora) were quashed, the evidence obtained during that search, which led to the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C against the respondent assessee, cannot be rendered invalid. The Court noted that while there might be an argument for initiating proceedings under Section 148 in case of an invalid search, the controversy was concluded by the cited precedents. The appeals were allowed, and the question of law was answered in favour of the revenue. The cross objections were partly rejected, and the matters were restored to the Tribunal for decision on merits.

The High Court held that the reopening of assessment based solely on the report of the District Valuation Officer (DVO) is impermissible in law. The Court noted that the original assessment for Assessment Year 2011-12 was completed under Section 143(3) after detailed scrutiny, and the assessee had produced all relevant documents regarding the cost of construction. The DVO's report, which estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 8,99,96,351/- as against the assessee's declared cost of Rs. 5,94,52,001/-, was furnished after the original assessment order was passed. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant CIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. (supra) which held that a DVO's opinion is not per se information for reopening an assessment under Section 147. Furthermore, the Court found that the AO had not rejected the assessee's books of account before referring the matter to the DVO, which was a prerequisite for making a reference under Section 142A as it stood at the relevant time. Therefore, the reopening of assessment based solely on the DVO's report, without any other material indicating escapement of income, amounted to a mere change of opinion and was not justified. The impugned notice dated 30.03.2018 was quashed and set aside.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. In light of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, which stipulates that no appeal where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court, and considering its retrospective applicability to pending appeals, the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant (revenue) did not press the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as not pressed. The court also noted that if there was any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular was not applicable for any reason, the appellant would have the liberty to seek revival of the appeal.

The High Court held that since the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs. 50,00,000/- and Circular No. 3/2018 makes such appeals not pressable before the High Court, the appeal is disposed of as not pressed. The reasoning is based on the admitted fact of the low tax effect and the applicability of the CBDT circular. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit, as per the relevant circular, are to be withdrawn or not pressed. The operative direction is to dispose of the appeal as not pressed. The court also noted that if there is any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular is not applicable for any reason, the appellant can seek revival of the appeal.

The High Court held that since the tax effect involved in the appeal was less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, and in light of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, which mandates that no appeal with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and is retrospectively applicable to pending appeals, the appellant's counsel did not press the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as not pressed. The Court also noted that if there was any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular was not applicable for any reason, the appellant could seek revival of the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground based on a circular.

The Tribunal held that it is an admitted position between the parties that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. In light of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, which stipulates that no appeal where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and is retrospectively applicable to pending appeals, the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant did not press the appeal. The appeal was accordingly disposed of as not pressed. The Tribunal also noted that if there is any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular is not applicable for any reason, the appellant would be at liberty to seek revival of the appeal. No specific finding was given on the merits of the original dispute.

The High Court held that the notice dated 04.12.2017 for reopening the assessment for AY 2011-12 was issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The proviso to section 147 of the Act is clearly attracted. The court found that during the scrutiny assessment, the petitioner had submitted a report under section 92E and disclosed particulars of international transactions in Form 3CEB. Therefore, there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment. The reasons recorded for reopening also did not indicate any such failure. Furthermore, the reasons referred to sections 92C and 92CA and a failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to observe prescribed procedures, rather than a failure of the assessee. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was without authority of law, and the impugned notice could not be sustained. The petition was allowed, and the impugned notice was quashed and set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to the facts of the case. The reasons recorded for reopening were based on factually incorrect premises. The petitioner had duly offered the long-term capital gain arising from the sale of the property in question in his return of income, supported by a detailed computation. The sale consideration recorded in the reasons (Rs. 6,07,000) was also incorrect, with the actual figure being Rs. 6,48,000. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer incorrectly stated in the reasons that the petitioner had not furnished any details, despite the petitioner having provided a reply with the sale deed and computation of income. Consequently, the prerequisite condition for reopening the assessment under Section 147, i.e., having reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, was not satisfied. Since the reopening was sought beyond four years and there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose material facts, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was invalid. The petition was allowed, and the impugned notice was quashed and set aside.

The High Court held that the conversion of Benzarone Crude to Benzarone Pure amounts to manufacture or production under Section 10B. The Court reasoned that Benzarone Pure is a distinct marketable commodity, different from Benzarone Crude, which is not usable as is. The process results in a new product with a separate commercial identity and medicinal use, aligning with the principles laid down in N.C. Budharaja & Co. and Arihant Tiles and Marbles Private Limited. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in allowing deduction for Benzarone Pure. However, regarding BFX-P, the Court found that no manufacturing process details were provided by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the High Court. In the absence of such material, it could not be concluded that any process of manufacture or production had taken place. Consequently, the Tribunal was not justified in allowing deduction for BFX-P. The appeal was partly allowed, quashing the Tribunal's order concerning BFX-P.

The High Court held that a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against a deceased person is invalid, and the Assessing Officer lacks jurisdiction to proceed with reassessment under Section 147 of the Act based on such a notice. The Court distinguished the present case from those where the legal representative waived the defect by participating in proceedings. In this case, the petitioner consistently objected to the validity of the notice from the outset and did not participate by filing a return. The Court found that Section 292B of the Act, which cures defects in notices, is not attracted because a notice to a dead person is not in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Act, which requires notice to the assessee or their legal representative. Section 159(2)(b) permits issuing a fresh notice to the legal representative if not barred by limitation, but does not validate proceedings based on an invalid notice to the deceased. Therefore, the impugned notice and subsequent proceedings were quashed and set aside. The Court found the decision in *Rasid Lala v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(6)* squarely applicable.

The High Court decided not to enter into the merits of the first question regarding the disallowance under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, citing the smallness of the amount involved (Rs. 39,502). The court left this issue open for the appellant to raise in an appropriate case. Regarding the second question concerning the undervaluation of closing stock, the Tribunal had held that the discrepancy of Rs. 7.85 lakhs was meagre, considering the total stock value of Rs. 27.10 crores. The Tribunal reasoned that the stock statement filed with the bank was provisional and small variations are common, especially when accounts are finalized and audited after a time lag. The High Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's order, agreeing that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition merely based on the bank stock statement, given the meagre discrepancy and the reasons provided by the Tribunal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

The High Court held that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal was based on concurrent findings of fact recorded after appreciating the material on record. In the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the impugned order, the appeal did not give rise to a substantial question of law warranting interference. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to concur with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings, which directed the AO not to reduce the eligible profit by Rs. 27,95,329 on account of expenditure allocation, was upheld. The High Court found no grounds to disturb the ITAT's order.

The High Court granted the permission as prayed for by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also granted the liberty to the Revenue to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage after the withdrawal, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. No decision was made on the merits of the case. The specific tax effect and the assessment years are not recorded in the judgment.

The High Court granted the permission as prayed for by the Revenue. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also granted the liberty sought by the Revenue to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage after the withdrawal, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the substantive tax dispute, as the appeal was withdrawn by the Revenue. Therefore, no finding on the taxability or any specific issue related to the assessment year is recorded. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with the specified liberty.

The High Court granted the permission as prayed for by the appellant. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court reserved a right to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage after withdrawal, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The reasoning for the decision is solely based on the appellant's submission and the CBDT circular cited, without any adjudication on the merits of the underlying tax dispute. No specific finding on any tax-related issue was made, as the appeal was withdrawn.

The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad granted the permission as prayed for by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also granted the liberty to the Revenue to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage after the withdrawal of the appeal, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The reasoning for the decision is solely based on the Revenue's request and the CBDT circular cited, without delving into the merits of the original dispute. No specific finding was made on the substantive issues that led to the original appeal, as the appeal was withdrawn.

The High Court granted the permission as prayed for by the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also granted the liberty sought by the Revenue to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage after the withdrawal of the appeal, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The specific finding on any substantive issue of income tax law is not applicable as the appeal was withdrawn before any adjudication on merits. The ratio decidendi for this order is that the court will permit withdrawal of an appeal by the revenue if the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit and the conditions of the relevant CBDT circular are met, with the possibility of revival if errors are found.

The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad granted the permission as prayed for by the appellant. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also granted liberty to the appellant to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The reasoning for the decision was solely based on the appellant's submission and the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals. No decision was made on the merits of the original dispute. The principle that can be cited is that appeals can be withdrawn based on administrative instructions and monetary limits, with potential liberty to revive.

The High Court held that the impugned order passed by the ITAT does not give rise to any question of law, much less a substantial question of law. The reasoning for this decision is based on the High Court's own prior order dated 22.10.2018 in Tax Appeal Nos. 1266 of 2018 and 1267 of 2018, which affirmed the ITAT's decision in the case of Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. In that prior case, the High Court had held that the expenditure was general in nature, aimed at improving fertility practices amongst milk animals by addressing infertility issues. Such expenditure was considered to be for the purpose of business and not relatable to any tangible returns. Therefore, for the reasons recorded in the earlier judgment, the present appeals were dismissed.

The High Court held that the impugned order passed by the ITAT did not give rise to any question of law, much less a substantial question of law. The reasoning was based on the prior decision of the High Court in Tax Appeal No.1266 of 2018 and Tax Appeal No.1267 of 2018, which affirmed the ITAT's view. In that prior decision, the High Court had held that the expenditure was general in nature and aimed at improving the practices for better fertility amongst milk animals by addressing issues causing infertility. Therefore, the expenditure was considered to be for the purpose of the assessee's business and not co-relatable to any tangible returns. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the ITAT's order, which had maintained parity with its own coordinate bench's decision. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.

The High Court held that the impugned order passed by the ITAT does not give rise to any question of law, much less a substantial question of law. The reasoning for this decision is based on the High Court's own prior order dated 22.10.2018 in Tax Appeal Nos. 1266 of 2018 and 1267 of 2018, which affirmed the ITAT's decision in the case of Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. In that prior case, the High Court had held that the expenditure was general in nature, aimed at improving fertility practices amongst milk animals by addressing infertility issues. Such expenditure was considered to be for the purpose of business and not relatable to any tangible returns. Therefore, for the reasons recorded in the earlier judgment, the present appeals were dismissed.

The High Court granted the permission as prayed for by the appellant. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court also granted liberty to the appellant to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The reasoning for the decision was solely based on the appellant's submission regarding the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular and the absence of any exceptional circumstances. No decision on the merits of the original tax dispute was made.

The High Court granted permission to withdraw the appeal as prayed for by the Revenue. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage after the withdrawal, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The decision to withdraw was based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated by the CBDT and the case did not meet the criteria for exceptions under the relevant circular. No decision on the merits of the original appeal was made.

The High Court granted permission to the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. The Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- and the case did not meet the criteria for exceptional clauses as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Court allowed the withdrawal with a liberty reserved for the Revenue to revive the appeal if any discrepancies were found at a later stage, acknowledging the possibility of human error. No decision on the merits of the case was made.

The High Court granted permission as prayed for by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage after the withdrawal, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The decision to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn was based on the Revenue's submission regarding the tax effect and the CBDT circular. No decision was made on the merits of the original appeal.

The High Court granted permission as prayed for by the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage after the withdrawal, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal. The specific monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- and the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 were the basis for the withdrawal request and its acceptance.

The High Court granted permission to withdraw the appeal as prayed for by the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The decision was based on the Revenue's submission regarding the tax effect and the CBDT circular, and no substantive issue on merits was decided. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn with the stated liberty.

The High Court granted the permission as prayed for by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also granted the liberty to the Revenue to revive the appeal in the future, should any discrepancy come to notice after the withdrawal, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. No decision was made on the merits of the case. The specific reasons for the original appeal or the order under challenge were not discussed as the appeal was withdrawn.

The High Court granted the permission as prayed for by the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage after the withdrawal, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal. The reasoning for the withdrawal was solely based on the administrative instructions from the CBDT regarding the monetary limit for filing appeals and the absence of exceptional circumstances. The principle derived is that appeals can be withdrawn by the Revenue based on administrative circulars and monetary limits, subject to court permission and potential revival under specific conditions.

The High Court granted the permission as prayed for by the revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court also granted the liberty to the revenue to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. No decision on the merits of the appeal was made. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with the specified liberty.

The High Court granted permission to withdraw the appeal as prayed for by the Revenue. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The specific findings on the merits of the case are not discussed as the appeal was withdrawn. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limits, and not falling under exceptional categories, can be withdrawn by the Revenue as per CBDT instructions, with liberty to revive if errors are found.

The High Court of Gujarat granted the permission as prayed for by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court also granted liberty to the appellant to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage after the withdrawal, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The decision to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn was based on the revenue's submission regarding the tax effect and CBDT circular, and no adjudication on the merits of the original dispute took place. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal can be withdrawn by the revenue if the tax effect falls below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptional circumstances exist, with a possibility of revival if errors are discovered.

The High Court granted permission to the appellant (Commissioner of Income Tax) to withdraw the appeal. The Court noted the submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- and the case did not fall within the exceptional clauses as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty reserved to the appellant to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage after withdrawal, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. No decision on the merits of the case was made.

The High Court granted permission to withdraw the appeal as prayed for by the appellant. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The court also granted liberty to the appellant to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage after the withdrawal, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. No decision was made on the merits of the case. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute were not recorded in the judgment.

The High Court granted permission to the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. The Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and that the case did not qualify for any exceptions. The Court also granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the appeal at a later stage in case any discrepancy was found due to human error. No decision was made on the merits of the case.

The High Court granted the permission as prayed for by the appellant. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court also granted liberty to the appellant to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage after the withdrawal, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The decision to withdraw was based on the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT and the case not meeting the criteria for exceptions. No decision on the merits of the original appeal was made.

The High Court granted permission to withdraw the appeal as prayed for by the Revenue. The Court noted the submission of the Revenue that the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, and the case did not fall under any exceptional clauses. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty reserved for the appellant to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage, acknowledging the possibility of human error. No decision on the merits of the appeal was made.

The High Court granted permission to withdraw the appeal as prayed for by the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage after the withdrawal, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The Court did not decide the merits of the original appeal. The ratio decidendi is that appeals below a certain monetary threshold, as per CBDT circulars, can be withdrawn by the Revenue, with a possibility of revival under specific circumstances. No specific issue was left undecided as the appeal was withdrawn.

The High Court granted permission to withdraw the appeal as prayed for by the revenue. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court also granted liberty to the revenue to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage after the withdrawal, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original appeal, as the decision was based on the revenue's request for withdrawal. The principle that can be cited is that courts may allow withdrawal of appeals based on administrative instructions and monetary limits set by the revenue authorities, provided no prejudice is caused to the other party and liberty to revive is granted in exceptional circumstances.

The High Court granted permission to withdraw the appeal as prayed for by the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy was noticed at a later stage, acknowledging the possibility of human error. The court did not decide the merits of the appeal.

The High Court granted permission to the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The Court held that the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning is based on the appellant's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and did not fall under any exceptional clauses. The Court also granted liberty to the appellant to revive the appeal at a later stage if any discrepancy comes to notice, acknowledging the possibility of human error. The ratio decidendi is that appeals below a certain monetary threshold, as per CBDT circulars, can be withdrawn by the revenue, with a possibility of revival under specific circumstances. No specific issue was decided on merits.

The High Court granted the permission as prayed for by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also granted liberty to the appellant to revive the appeal if any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage after the withdrawal, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original tax appeal.

The High Court granted permission to withdraw the appeal as prayed for by the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy came to notice at a later stage, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The decision to withdraw was based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit and did not fall under any exceptional categories as per the CBDT Circular. No decision was made on the merits of the original appeal.

The High Court granted permission as prayed for by the appellant. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court also granted liberty to the appellant to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage after the withdrawal, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The court did not decide the merits of the case but disposed of the appeal based on the revenue's request for withdrawal. No specific issue was left undecided as the appeal was withdrawn.

The High Court of Gujarat granted permission to withdraw the appeal. The Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court also granted the appellant liberty to revive the appeal at a later stage if any discrepancy came to notice, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The decision to withdraw was based on the instruction from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial) due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No.3/2018 and the case not falling under any exceptional clauses. No finding was made on the merits of the original appeal.

The High Court granted permission to the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy was noticed at a later stage, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The decision to withdraw was based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and the case did not fall under any exceptional categories. No decision was made on the merits of the case.

The High Court granted permission to the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. The Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy was noticed at a later stage, acknowledging the possibility of human error. The Court did not decide the merits of the case. No specific finding on any substantive issue was made as the appeal was withdrawn.