Karnataka High Court Judgments — 2015

The High Court considered CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated December 10, 2015. This circular enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court from Rs. 10 lacs to Rs. 20 lacs and was clarified to apply retrospectively to pending appeals. The Revenue's counsel stated that the tax effect in the present appeal is below the revised limit of Rs. 20 lacs. Consequently, in view of the circular and the stated tax effect, the High Court held that the appeal stands dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of based on the circular.

The High Court noted that the tax effect in the present appeals was below the enhanced limit of Rs. 20 lacs. Following the circular, the appeals were dismissed.

The High Court held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated December 10, 2015, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 20 lacs and applied retrospectively to pending appeals, the present appeal, having a tax effect below Rs. 20 lacs, was to be dismissed. The reasoning was based solely on the circular and the confirmation by the Revenue that the tax effect was below the specified limit. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issues were left undecided.

The High Court, following a CBDT circular, held that appeals with a tax effect below the specified limit should be withdrawn or not pressed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The High Court held that the appeal was to be dismissed in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated December 10, 2015. The circular enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 20 lacs and was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was below this specified limit. Consequently, the High Court directed that the appeal stands dismissed. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original ITAT order, as the dismissal was based on the procedural aspect of the revised monetary limits.

The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue should be dismissed in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. This circular enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court from Rs. 10 lacs to Rs. 20 lacs and clarified that it would apply retrospectively to pending appeals. The Revenue's counsel stated that the tax effect in the present appeal was below the revised limit of Rs. 20 lacs. Consequently, following the circular, the Court dismissed the appeal. No specific findings were made on the merits of the ITAT's order. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. The circular also allowed for withdrawal or non-pressing of pending appeals below the limit.

The High Court held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 20 lacs and applied retrospectively, the present appeal, having a tax effect below Rs. 20 lacs, should be dismissed. The reasoning is directly based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect falls below the revised threshold and the explicit instruction within the circular for such pending appeals to be withdrawn or not pressed. The operative direction is that the appeal stands dismissed. No issues were expressly left undecided.

The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is to be dismissed in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated December 10, 2015. The circular enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 20 lacs and clarified its retrospective application to pending appeals. Since the tax effect in the present appeal was stated by the Revenue's counsel to be below Rs. 20 lacs, the appeal was dismissed accordingly. The reasoning is based on the administrative instruction from the CBDT to streamline litigation and reduce the burden of appeals with low tax effect. No specific issue was decided on merits; the appeal was disposed of based on the circular.

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, placed on record the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants (Revenue). The court noted that the appellant's counsel submitted that they do not press the appeal in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific grounds of the original appeal before the ITAT and the reasoning of the ITAT are not discussed or decided by the High Court in this order, as the appeal was withdrawn. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal can be withdrawn by the revenue based on a subsequent circular issued by the department.

The High Court followed its earlier judgment in the Canfin Homes Ltd. case. The issue in this appeal was identical to the previously decided case.

The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants (revenue) that the appeal was not pressed in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. Placing this submission on record, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No specific finding was made on the merits of the case or the order passed by the ITAT. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, with no costs awarded. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeal itself was withdrawn.

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, accepted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue). The court noted that the counsel did not press the appeal in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated December 10, 2015. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific reasoning behind the circular's applicability or the merits of the original ITAT order were not discussed or decided by the High Court, as the appeal was withdrawn by the Revenue.

The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants (Revenue) that he does not press the appeal in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. Consequently, the submission of the learned counsel was placed on record. The High Court held that the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the merits of the case, which led to the Revenue's appeal, are not discussed or decided by the High Court as the appeal was withdrawn. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court found the issues in this petition to be similar to a previous case. It appointed Sri S. Ramdas, a retired Civil Engineer, as the sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute.

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, noted the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants (Revenue) that he did not press the appeal in view of Circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The Court placed the submission on record and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings or reasoning of the ITAT that were under challenge are not discussed as the appeal was withdrawn by the Revenue.

The High Court noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) that the appeal was not being pressed in light of Circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The Court placed the submission on record and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case by the High Court, as the appeal was disposed of on the basis of the Revenue's decision not to press it. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, with no costs.

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants (revenue) that the appeal was not being pressed in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The Court placed the submission on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No specific finding was given on the merits of the case, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground based on the revenue's decision not to pursue it. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appeal was not being pressed in view of Circular No.21/2015 dated December 10, 2015. The court placed the submission on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings or reasoning of the ITAT, or the substantive issues that led to the original appeal before the Tribunal, were not discussed or decided by the High Court as the appeal was withdrawn.

The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appeal was not pressed in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The Court placed the submission on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case, and no substantial questions of law were formulated or decided. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, with no costs.

The High Court agreed with the assessee that the substantial questions of law were identical to a previous case. Therefore, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that he does not press the appeal in view of Circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The submission was placed on record. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings or reasoning of the Tribunal or the Income Tax Officer are not discussed as the appeal was withdrawn at the High Court stage.

The tribunal held that co-operative banks were not required to deduct tax at source on time deposits paid or credited before June 1, 2015, based on a clarification from the Ministry of Finance.

The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) that the appeal is not pressed in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The Court placed the submission on record and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific contents of Circular No. 21/2015 and the reasons for not pressing the appeal are not detailed in the judgment. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the original ITAT order.

The Tribunal's finding that co-operative banks were required to deduct tax at source under Section 194A was unsustainable. The appeal was dismissed based on a High Court decision and a clarification regarding the amendment to Section 194A.

The Tribunal held that Co-operative Banks were not required to deduct tax at source on time deposits paid or credited before June 1, 2015. This was based on a clarification from the Ministry of Finance.

The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) that the appeal was not pressed in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The Court placed the submission on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the Tribunal or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the merits of the case were not discussed or decided by the High Court as the appeal was withdrawn. Therefore, no principle can be cited from this judgment on the substantive issues of the case.

The Tribunal referred to a Ministry of Finance circular which clarified that Co-operative Banks were not required to deduct tax at source on time deposits of its members paid or credited before June 1, 2015. This amendment was prospective from June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants (revenue) that the appeal is not pressed in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The submission was placed on record. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific reasoning behind the circular or why it led to the withdrawal of the appeal is not detailed in the judgment. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court noted that the questions of law were covered by a previous decision in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, with the questions of law answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.

The High Court noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants (revenue) that they do not wish to press the appeal. This decision was stated to be in view of Circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. Consequently, the High Court placed the submission on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific grounds of the original appeal before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal's findings on those grounds, are not detailed in this High Court judgment.

The High Court held that cement used for civil works and foundations for the plant and machinery constitutes a part of the 'plant' and thus 'Capital Goods'. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim input tax credit on such cement purchased prior to commercial production.

The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants (Revenue) that he did not press the appeal in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated December 10, 2015. Consequently, the High Court placed the submission on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No specific findings were made by the High Court on the merits of the case, as the appeal was not pressed. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, with no costs.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the first question was decided in favour of the assessee. The second question was deemed academic and not requiring an answer in light of the first question's outcome.

The Tribunal's finding that co-operative banks were not required to deduct tax at source on interest payments before June 1, 2015, was upheld. The court also referred to a previous judgment regarding accrued interest on NPAs.

The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) submitted that he did not press the appeal in view of Circular No.21/2015 in F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt), dated 10.12.2015. The submission of the learned counsel was placed on record. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The principle that can be cited is that an appeal can be withdrawn by the appellant if they choose not to press it, especially in light of subsequent departmental instructions or circulars.

The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellants that the appeal is not pressed in view of Circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. Placing the submission on record, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT or the Income Tax Officer, nor the reasoning behind the circular, are detailed in this judgment.

The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appeal was not being pressed due to Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The submission was placed on record. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific content of Circular No. 21/2015 and its relevance to the original dispute before the ITAT are not detailed in this judgment. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the case.

The High Court noted the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants (revenue). The counsel stated that he did not press the appeal in view of Circular No. 21/2015 in F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt), dated December 10, 2015. Based on this submission, the High Court placed the submission on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings or reasoning of the Tribunal that were under challenge are not detailed, nor is the content of the circular mentioned, beyond its date and reference number.

The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants (revenue) that he did not press the appeal in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The Court placed this submission on record. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the original ITAT order or any specific findings related to the income tax assessment. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants (Revenue). The counsel stated that the appeal was not being pressed in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The submission of the counsel was placed on record. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The judgment does not record any findings on the merits of the case or the specific issues that were before the ITAT.

The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appeal was not being pressed in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The Court placed the submission on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case, and no substantial questions of law were formulated or decided. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, with no costs.

The High Court dismissed the appeal by the Revenue. It was noted that a Division Bench of the same court had already decided the issue in favour of the assessee in a similar case.

The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) that the appeal was not pressed in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated December 10, 2015. The Court placed the submission on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings or reasoning of the ITAT or the Joint Commissioner were not discussed or decided by the High Court as the appeal was withdrawn.

The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appeal was not being pressed in view of Circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The Court placed the submission on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No specific finding was given on the merits of the case, and no costs were awarded. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the appeal. The learned counsel for the Appellants (Revenue) submitted that he did not press the appeal, citing Circular No. 21/2015 dated December 10, 2015. The High Court placed the submission of the learned counsel on record. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific reasoning behind the Revenue's decision not to press the appeal, or the contents of the cited circular, are not elaborated upon in the judgment. No issues were expressly left undecided as the appeal was withdrawn.

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that he did not press the appeal in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. Consequently, the Court placed the submission on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings or reasoning of the ITAT were not discussed or decided by the High Court as the appeal was withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants (Revenue) that the appeal was not being pressed in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated December 10, 2015. The submission of the learned counsel was placed on record. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the Tribunal on the merits of the case, which were under challenge, were not addressed as the appeal was withdrawn by the Revenue.

The High Court held that the Settlement Commission's decision to proceed with the application, while keeping the issue of full and true disclosure open for final hearing, was not an infirmity. The court noted that the assessee had paid tax on a significant sum and that the issue of maintainability could be raised before the Settlement Commission.

The High Court held that the Assessing Officer has no power to recompute book profit beyond the adjustments permitted by the explanation to Section 115JB. The accounts, even with a qualification, were approved and filed as per the Companies Act.