J&K High Court Judgments — 2025

The High Court found that the ITAT and CIT(A) orders were perverse as they did not properly consider the material on record, including RBI communications regarding CBDT instructions on Form 16. The issue of delay attributable to the assessee was not thoroughly examined.

The High Court held that, as per the Supreme Court's judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ABC Papers Ltd, appeals against ITAT decisions lie before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. Therefore, this court lacked territorial jurisdiction.

The High Court held that, as per the Supreme Court's judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ABC Papers Ltd, appeals against ITAT decisions lie before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. Therefore, this court lacks territorial jurisdiction.

The High Court held that based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ABC Papers Ltd, appeals against ITAT decisions lie before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. Therefore, the court lacked territorial jurisdiction.

The High Court held that, as per the Supreme Court's judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ABC Papers Ltd, appeals against ITAT decisions lie before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. Therefore, this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction.

The High Court held that, as per the Supreme Court's judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ABC Papers Ltd, appeals against ITAT decisions lie before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. Therefore, the court lacked territorial jurisdiction.