Loading High Court cases…
201 orders · Page 4 of 5
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. The Court noted that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, which was later amended by Circular No. 9/2024, supersedes the earlier Circulars dated 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019. Crucially, the Court observed that the subsequent circulars do not provide for the exception clause 10(C), which allowed appeals to be filed irrespective of the tax effect. Therefore, as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limits and no applicable exception clause existed in the superseding circulars, the appeal was dismissed. However, the Court clarified that the question of law raised in the appeal remains open, and the appellant is at liberty to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court observed that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, dated 15/03/2024, which was later amended by Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17/09/2024, superseded the earlier circulars of 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019. Crucially, the Court noted that the latest circular did not provide for an exception clause (like 10(C)) that would allow an appeal to be filed notwithstanding that the tax effect was less than the monetary limits. Therefore, based on the superseding circulars and the absence of a relevant exception, the appeal was dismissed. However, the Court granted liberty to the appellant (Revenue) to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law, and the question of law raised in the appeal was expressly left open.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. The Court observed that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, issued on March 15, 2024, and subsequently amended by Circular No. 9/2024 on September 17, 2024, superseded the earlier Circular No. 3/2018 and Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the later circulars do not provide for exception clause 10(C), which allowed filing appeals notwithstanding the tax effect being below monetary limits. Therefore, based on the superseding circulars, the appeal, with a tax effect of Rs. 2,85,000, did not meet the criteria for entertainability. The appeal was dismissed on this ground. However, the Court clarified that the question of law raised in the appeal would remain open, and the appellant (Revenue) would be at liberty to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. The Court observed that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, which was later amended by Circular No. 9/2024, supersedes the earlier circulars dated 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019. Crucially, the latest circulars do not provide for an exception clause like 10(C) that would permit filing an appeal despite the tax effect being below the stipulated monetary limits. Therefore, based on the prevailing circulars, the appeal did not meet the criteria for maintainability. The Court dismissed the appeal on this ground. However, the question of law raised in the appeal was expressly left open, and the appellant was granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court noted that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, issued on 15/03/2024, and subsequently amended by Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17/09/2024, supersedes the earlier circulars of 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019. The latest circulars do not provide for an exception clause like 10(C) that would allow filing an appeal despite the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. However, the Court clarified that the question of law raised in the appeal would remain open, and the appellant would be at liberty to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. The Court noted that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, which was later amended by Circular No. 9/2024, supersedes the earlier Circular No. 3/2018 and Circular No. 17/2019. The latest circulars do not provide for an exception clause like 10(C) that would allow filing an appeal notwithstanding the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Therefore, based on the prevailing circulars, the appeal was dismissed. However, the Court clarified that the question of law raised in the appeal remains open, and the appellant is at liberty to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal is not maintainable. The Court noted that CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, dated 17/09/2024, supersedes earlier circulars, including CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and 5/2024. The latest circular does not provide for an exception clause like 10(C) that would permit filing an appeal despite the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Therefore, based on the superseding circular, the appeal was dismissed. However, the Court clarified that the question of law raised in the appeal remains open, and the appellant is at liberty to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court observed that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15/03/2024, which was later amended by Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17/09/2024, superseded the earlier Circulars of 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019. Crucially, the latest circulars did not provide for an exception clause similar to 10(C) that would permit filing an appeal despite the tax effect being below the stipulated monetary limits. Therefore, based on the prevailing circulars at the time of the decision, the appeal could not be entertained. The Court dismissed the appeal but explicitly stated that the question of law raised would remain open, and the appellant was at liberty to file an application if the cause of action survived as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. The Court noted that the tax effect of Rs. 35,000 was below the monetary limits specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. Furthermore, the Court observed that CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, issued on September 17, 2024, superseded the earlier circulars dated July 11, 2018, and August 8, 2019. Crucially, the latest circular (No. 9/2024) does not provide an exception clause similar to 10(C) of the earlier circular, which allowed filing appeals notwithstanding the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Therefore, based on the superseding circular and the absence of an applicable exception, the appeal was dismissed. The Court, however, clarified that the question of law raised in the appeal would remain open, and the appellant is at liberty to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court reasoned that the tax effect involved in the case, Rs. 1,49,000, was below the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. Furthermore, the Court noted that the subsequent CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, dated September 17, 2024, which superseded the earlier circulars, did not contain an exception clause (like 10(C)) that would allow an appeal to be filed notwithstanding a tax effect below the stipulated monetary limits. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of non-maintainability. However, the Court clarified that the question of law raised in the appeal would remain open, and the appellant (Revenue) would be at liberty to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. The Court noted that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15/03/2024, which was later amended by Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17/09/2024, supersedes the earlier circulars dated 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019. Crucially, the latest circular does not provide for an exception clause like 10(C) that would permit filing an appeal irrespective of the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Therefore, based on the prevailing circular, the appeal was dismissed. However, the Court granted liberty to the appellant (Revenue) to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law, and the question of law raised in the appeal was expressly left open.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court noted that the tax effect of Rs. 1,06,000 was below the monetary limits stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. Furthermore, the Court observed that CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, which superseded earlier circulars, did not contain an exception clause like 10(C) that would permit filing an appeal despite the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limits. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of maintainability. However, the Court clarified that the question of law raised in the appeal would remain open, and the appellant would be at liberty to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. The Court noted that the tax effect involved was Rs. 14,63,000, which was below the monetary limits stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. The Court further observed that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, which was later amended by Circular No. 9/2024, superseded the earlier circulars dated 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019. Crucially, the subsequent circulars did not provide for an exception clause similar to 10(C) that would allow filing an appeal despite the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Therefore, based on the prevailing circulars at the time of consideration, the appeal was found to be non-maintainable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. However, the question of law raised in the appeal was left open, and the appellant was granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survived as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court observed that CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, dated 17/09/2024, which superseded earlier circulars including No. 3/2018, did not provide for an exception clause like 10(C) that would allow filing an appeal irrespective of the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Therefore, based on the prevailing circulars at the time of the decision, the appeal was dismissed. However, the Court clarified that the question of law raised in the appeal would remain open, and the appellant was at liberty to file an application if the cause of action survived as per law. The operative direction was dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. The Court noted that the tax effect involved was Rs. 14,16,000, which is below the monetary limits specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. The Court further observed that CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, issued on 17/09/2024, supersedes the earlier circulars dated 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019. Crucially, the latest circular does not provide an exception clause like 10(C) that would permit filing an appeal despite the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Therefore, based on the prevailing circulars, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. The appellant was granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. The Court noted that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, issued on 15/03/2024 and later amended by Circular No. 9/2024 on 17/09/2024, supersedes the earlier circulars of 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019. The latest circular does not provide for an exception clause (like 10(C)) that would allow filing an appeal notwithstanding the tax effect being below the specified monetary limits. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. However, the Court stated that the question of law raised in the appeal would remain open, and the appellant is at liberty to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. The Court observed that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, issued on 15/03/2024, and subsequently amended by Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17/09/2024, supersedes the earlier Circulars dated 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019. Crucially, the later circulars do not provide for an exception clause similar to 10(C) that would allow filing an appeal irrespective of the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Therefore, as the tax effect of Rs. 7,73,000/- was below the prescribed limits and no exception clause was available in the superseding circulars, the appeal was dismissed. The Revenue was granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survived as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. The Court observed that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, dated 15/03/2024, which was later amended by Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17/09/2024, superseded the earlier Circulars dated 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019. Crucially, the Court noted that the later circulars do not provide for an exception clause, such as 10(C), which would allow an appeal to be filed notwithstanding that the tax effect is less than the stipulated monetary limits. Therefore, based on the superseding circulars and the absence of an applicable exception, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. The appellant was granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court noted that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, which was later amended by Circular No. 9/2024, supersedes the earlier Circulars dated 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019. The Court observed that the latest circulars do not provide an exception clause (like 10(C)) that would allow an appeal to be filed irrespective of the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Therefore, based on the superseding nature of the later circulars and the absence of an applicable exception, the appeal was dismissed. However, the Court clarified that the question of law raised in the appeal would remain open, and the appellant was at liberty to file an application if the cause of action survived as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court observed that the tax effect involved in the case was Rs.27,12,000/-, which was below the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. Crucially, the Court noted that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, as amended by Circular No. 9/2024, superseded the earlier circulars dated 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019. The latest circular did not provide an exception clause (like 10(C)) that would allow filing an appeal despite the tax effect being below the specified monetary limits. Therefore, based on the prevailing circulars at the time of consideration, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. The appellant was granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survived as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court observed that CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17/09/2024, which superseded earlier circulars including No. 3/2018, No. 17/2019, and No. 5/2024, did not provide an exception clause similar to 10(C) that would allow filing an appeal notwithstanding the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Therefore, based on the superseding circular, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. However, the Court clarified that the question of law raised in the appeal would remain open, and the appellant (Revenue) would be at liberty to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. The Court observed that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15/03/2024, which was later amended by Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17/09/2024, supersedes the earlier circulars dated 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019. Crucially, the Court noted that the latest circular does not provide for an exception clause (like 10(C)) that would permit filing an appeal despite the tax effect being less than the monetary limits. Therefore, based on the prevailing circulars, the appeal could not be entertained. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. However, the Court clarified that the question of law raised in the appeal shall remain open, and the appellant (Revenue) is at liberty to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court observed that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, which was later amended by Circular No. 9/2024, superseded the earlier circulars of 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019. Crucially, the latest circulars did not provide for an exception clause similar to 10(C) that would allow filing an appeal irrespective of the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Therefore, based on the prevailing circulars at the time of the decision, the appeal did not meet the criteria for entertainability. The Court dismissed the appeal. However, it granted the appellant liberty to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. The Court referred to CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024, which was later amended by Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. These later circulars supersede the earlier ones (dated 11.07.2018 and 08.08.2019). The Court observed that the subsequent circulars do not provide for an exception clause, such as 10(C), which would allow filing an appeal notwithstanding the tax effect being less than the monetary limits. Therefore, based on the prevailing circulars at the time of the decision, the appeal was found to be non-maintainable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. However, the appellant was granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. The Court observed that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024, which was later amended by Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, supersedes the earlier circulars of 11.07.2018 and 08.08.2019. Crucially, the Court noted that the later circulars do not provide for an exception clause (like 10(C)) that would permit filing an appeal notwithstanding the tax effect being less than the specified monetary limits. Therefore, based on the prevailing circulars at the time of the decision, the appeal did not meet the criteria for entertainability. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The appellant (Revenue) was granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. The Court observed that CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17/09/2024 supersedes earlier circulars, including Circular No.3/2018 and Circular No. 5/2024. Crucially, the superseding circular does not provide for any exception clause, such as 10(C), which would allow an appeal to be filed notwithstanding that the tax effect is less than the monetary limits. Therefore, as the tax effect of Rs.1.16 Crore was below the stipulated monetary limits and no exception clause was applicable under the prevailing circulars, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant (Revenue) was granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court observed that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, dated 15.03.2024, which was later amended by Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, superseded the earlier circulars dated 11.07.2018 and 08.08.2019. The Court noted that the latest circular did not provide for an exception clause, such as 10(C), which would allow filing an appeal notwithstanding that the tax effect was less than the specified monetary limits. Therefore, based on the superseding circular, the appeal was dismissed for not being maintainable. The appellant was granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survived as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court observed that the tax effect involved was Rs.1,03,63,360/, which was below the monetary limits specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. Crucially, the Court noted that CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, dated 17/09/2024, which superseded earlier circulars including Circular No. 3/2018, did not provide an exception clause (like 10(C)) that would permit filing an appeal notwithstanding the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of maintainability. The appellant was granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survived as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court referred to CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15/03/2024, which was later amended by Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17/09/2024. This latest circular supersedes the earlier ones dated 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019. Crucially, the Court noted that the latest circular does not provide for an exception clause (like 10(C)) that would allow filing an appeal notwithstanding the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Therefore, as the tax effect was below the prescribed limits and no exception applied, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant was granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court observed that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15/03/2024, which was later amended by Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17/09/2024, superseded the earlier circulars of 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019. Crucially, the Court noted that the latest circulars did not provide for an exception clause similar to 10(C), which would allow filing an appeal notwithstanding the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Therefore, the appeal, which relied on a superseded exception, could not be entertained. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The appellant was granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survived as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court noted that the tax effect of Rs.1,41,97,379/- was below the monetary limits stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. Crucially, the Court observed that CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17/09/2024, which superseded the earlier circulars of 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019, did not provide for any exception clause (like 10(C)) that would permit filing an appeal notwithstanding the tax effect being less than the monetary limits. Therefore, based on the superseding circular, the appeal was found to be not maintainable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. However, the appellant was granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survived as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court observed that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, which was later amended by Circular No. 9/2024, supersedes the earlier circulars dated 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019. Crucially, the latest circulars do not provide for an exception clause like 10(C) that would permit filing an appeal irrespective of the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Therefore, as the tax effect of Rs.1.33 Crore was below the stipulated monetary limits and no applicable exception clause existed in the prevailing circulars, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant was granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survived as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. The Court observed that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15/03/2024, which was later amended by Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17/09/2024, supersedes the earlier circulars of 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019. Crucially, the latest circular does not provide for an exception clause (like 10(C)) that would permit filing an appeal notwithstanding the tax effect being less than the monetary limits. Therefore, based on the prevailing circular, the appeal fails the maintainability test. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The appellant was granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court observed that the tax effect involved in the case was Rs. 1,07,92,000/-, which was below the monetary limits stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. Crucially, the Court noted that the subsequent CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, which superseded the earlier circulars, did not contain an exception clause similar to 10(C) of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. This exception clause was the basis for the Revenue's argument for entertainability. Since the latest applicable circular did not provide for such an exception, the appeal could not be entertained. The Court accordingly dismissed the appeal. However, the appellant was granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survived as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court observed that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15/03/2024, which was later amended by Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17/09/2024, supersedes the earlier circulars dated 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019. Crucially, the latest circulars do not provide for an exception clause (like 10(C)) that would allow filing an appeal notwithstanding the tax effect being below the specified monetary limits. Since the tax effect of Rs.1.40 Crore was below the stipulated limits and no exception applied under the prevailing circulars, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant was granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. The Court observed that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15/03/2024, which was later amended by Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17/09/2024, supersedes the earlier circulars of 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019. Crucially, the later circulars do not provide for an exception clause (like 10(C)) that would permit filing an appeal notwithstanding the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Therefore, as the tax effect of Rs. 1.02 Crore was below the specified monetary limits and no exception applied, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant was granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court noted that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, which was later amended by Circular No. 9/2024, superseded the earlier Circular No. 3/2018 and Circular No. 17/2019. Crucially, the Court observed that the latest circulars did not provide for an exception clause (like 10(C)) that would allow an appeal to be filed despite the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Therefore, based on the prevailing circulars at the time of the decision, the appeal, with a tax effect of Rs. 1.13 Crore, did not meet the criteria for entertainability. The ratio decidendi is that appeals must adhere to the monetary limits and exception clauses as stipulated in the most current CBDT circulars. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the order of the ITAT. The Court observed that the appellant (Revenue) raised questions of fact and disputed the fact findings of the ITAT under the guise of substantial questions of law, which is not permissible. The Court noted that the ITAT dealt with all grounds raised by the appellant in its reasoned order, considering all available material. Citing *Santosh Hazari*, *Hero Vinoth (Minor)*, *Madan Lal*, *Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi*, *Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)*, *Metroark Ltd.*, *West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission*, and *K.Ravindranathan Nair*, the Court emphasized that it is the Tribunal which is the final fact-finding authority, and the High Court can interfere only if a finding of fact is perverse, meaning it could not reasonably have been arrived at on the material placed before the Tribunal. The Court found no perversity in the ITAT's order and stated that interference with the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT was not warranted. The appeal was dismissed in limine as it did not involve any substantial question of law requiring consideration under Section 260A of the Act.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The Court noted that the appellant (Revenue) raised questions of fact and disputed the fact-finding of the ITAT under the guise of substantial questions of law, which is impermissible. Citing precedents like Santosh Hazari and Hero Vinoth (Minor), the Court emphasized that a substantial question of law must be debatable and have a material bearing on the decision, and that High Courts generally do not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is perversity, ignorance of material evidence, or erroneous application of law. The Court found no perversity in the ITAT's order, which had considered all grounds and materials on record. The Tribunal, being the final fact-finding authority, its findings are binding in the absence of demonstrated perversity. Therefore, interference by the High Court was not warranted. The appeal was dismissed in limine as it did not involve any substantial question of law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. The Court noted that CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, dated 17/09/2024, which superseded earlier circulars including No. 3/2018, did not provide for Exception Clause 10(C). This clause allowed appeals to be filed irrespective of the tax effect if certain exceptions were met. Since the latest applicable circular did not contain this exception, the appeal, despite the tax effect being below the general monetary limits, could not be entertained on that ground. The Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds of maintainability. The appellant was granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survived as per law.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court observed that the tax effect of Rs. 4,19,027/- was below the monetary limits stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. Furthermore, the Court noted that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, as amended by Circular No. 9/2024, superseded earlier circulars and did not provide an exception clause (like 10(C)) that would allow filing an appeal notwithstanding the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant was granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survived as per law.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the order of the ITAT. The Court observed that the appellant-Revenue had raised questions of fact disguised as substantial questions of law, which is not permissible under the statute. The Court noted that the ITAT had dealt with all grounds raised by the appellant in its reasoned order, considering all available material. Citing legal principles from cases like Santosh Hazari, Hero Vinoth (Minor), K.Ravindranathan Nair, and Madan Lal, the Court emphasized that the ITAT is the final fact-finding authority and its findings can only be interfered with by the High Court if they are perverse, meaning they could not reasonably have been arrived at on the material placed before the Tribunal. The Court found no perversity in the ITAT's order and stated that interference with the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT was not warranted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine as it did not involve any substantial question of law required for admission under Section 260A of the Act.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The appellant (Revenue) raised questions of fact and disputed the fact-findings of the ITAT under the guise of substantial questions of law, which is not permissible. The Court found no perversity in the ITAT's order, noting that the Tribunal dealt with all grounds raised and passed a well-reasoned order considering all material on record. As the ITAT is the final fact-finding authority, and perversity in its findings was not demonstrated, interference by the High Court was not warranted. The Court cited legal principles from cases like Santosh Hazari, Hero Vinoth (Minor), Madan Lal, and K.Ravindranathan Nair to emphasize that High Courts should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is perversity or a substantial question of law arises. The appeal was dismissed in limine as it did not involve any substantial question of law meeting the provisions of Section 260A of the Act.
The High Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the name of a deceased person cannot be sustained. The Court reasoned that the notice under Section 148 is the foundation for reopening an assessment, and the prerequisite for acquiring jurisdiction to reopen is that such notice must be issued to the correct person, meaning not a dead person. The Court acknowledged that the judgment in Meet Lalwani (supra) did not consider the effect of Section 159A of the Act. However, finding the issue covered by the precedent set in Meet Lalwani (supra), the Court quashed the impugned assessment orders. The Court also noted that the effect of Section 159 of the Act was not considered in Meet Lalwani (supra) and granted liberty to the respondents/Department to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law, which is a prerequisite for admission under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court referred to various Supreme Court judgments, including Santosh Hazari and Hero Vinoth (Minor), to define what constitutes a substantial question of law. It emphasized that appeals under Section 260A are not for re-appreciating facts or challenging concurrent findings of fact unless perversity is demonstrated. The Court found that the appellant had raised questions of fact and disputed the fact-finding of the ITAT under the guise of substantial questions of law. The ITAT was deemed to be the final fact-finding authority, and its order was considered well-reasoned and based on available material. The Court concluded that there was no perversity in the ITAT's order, and therefore, interference was not warranted. The appeal was dismissed in limine as it did not meet the criteria for admitting an appeal under Section 260A.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. The Court extensively discussed the principles for admitting an appeal under Section 260A, referencing Supreme Court judgments like Santosh Hazari and Hero Vinoth (Minor). It emphasized that a substantial question of law must be debatable, not previously settled, and have a material bearing on the case. The Court found that the Revenue had raised questions that were essentially disputes of fact and challenged the factual findings of the ITAT, which is not permissible under Section 260A. The Court noted that the ITAT had dealt with all grounds raised by the Revenue, passed a well-reasoned order, and considered all available material. As the ITAT is the final fact-finding authority, and no perversity in its findings was demonstrated, the High Court refrained from interfering. The Court concluded that the additions/deletions made by the ITAT were not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, and therefore, the appeal did not meet the criteria for admission under Section 260A. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the ITAT's order. The Court referred to Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and various Supreme Court judgments (e.g., Santosh Hazari, Hero Vinoth, K.Ravindranathan Nair) defining what constitutes a substantial question of law. It emphasized that the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities unless there is perversity, a total lack of evidence, misreading of evidence, or erroneous application of legal principles. The Court found that the appellant (Revenue) had raised questions of fact and disputed the fact-findings of the ITAT under the guise of substantial questions of law, which is impermissible. The ITAT had considered all grounds raised by the appellant and passed a well-reasoned order. The High Court concluded that there was no perversity in the ITAT's order and that interference was not warranted. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine as it did not involve any substantial question of law.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the ITAT's order. The Court observed that the appellant (Revenue) raised questions of fact and disputed the fact-findings of the ITAT under the guise of substantial questions of law, which is impermissible under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court noted that the ITAT had dealt with all grounds raised by the appellant and passed a well-reasoned order considering all available material. As the ITAT is the final fact-finding authority, and no perversity in its findings was demonstrated, interference by the High Court was not warranted. The Court concluded that the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law as required by Section 260A, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine. No specific findings were made on the merits of the six proposed questions as the appeal was dismissed on the preliminary ground of not involving a substantial question of law.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the ITAT's order. The Court referred to various Supreme Court judgments, including Santosh Hazari and Hero Vinoth (Minor), which define a substantial question of law as one that is debatable, not previously settled, and has a material bearing on the decision. The Court emphasized that the ITAT is the final fact-finding authority and its findings of fact can only be challenged if they are perverse, meaning they could not reasonably have been arrived at on the material before the Tribunal. The Revenue's proposed questions were found to be primarily disputes of fact and fact findings, rather than questions of law. The Court noted that the ITAT had dealt with all grounds raised by the appellant in a well-reasoned order, considering all available material. Therefore, interference with the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT was not warranted. The Court concluded that the appeal lacked merit and did not meet the requirements of Section 260A for admission.
The High Court noted that a Co-ordinate Bench of the same Court, in W.P. No. 22058/2022, had dealt with a similar issue and directed the petitioner therein to avail the alternative remedy. Since this position was not disputed by the petitioner's counsel, the Court disposed of the present writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue the alternative remedy in light of the order passed in W.P. No. 22058/2022. The Court also observed that the period spent prosecuting the writ petition would not be taken into account for the purpose of limitation when availing the alternative remedy. No specific findings were made on the merits of the impugned orders.