Madras High Court Judgments — 2019

The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue has become infructuous. The reasoning provided is that the Assessing Authority has already passed a fresh Assessment Order dated 31.03.2017, pursuant to the remand order of the ITAT dated 28.10.2016, which was the subject of the present appeal. Therefore, the purpose of the appeal, which was to challenge the ITAT's order, has been overtaken by subsequent events. The court did not delve into the merits of the original ITAT order or the subsequent assessment order. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as infructuous. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's interlocutory order dated 21.06.2019. The Court held that the Tribunal's order rejecting the stay application was not a reasoned or speaking order. The Tribunal failed to discuss the case facts in sufficient detail and did not consider relevant facts, such as the assessee's success in previous assessment years on the same issue, which were raised in the stay application. The Court emphasized that Tribunals and civil courts are bound to provide findings and reasons, even if tentative, on the three essential aspects for stay applications: prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience. The Tribunal's observation that the Arms Length Price Adjustment required factual verification while simultaneously concluding no prima facie case was considered self-conflicting. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal to hear the stay application again and pass a fresh, reasoned order expeditiously, preferably within three months. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 03.10.2019.

The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. Instead, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue brought to the court's notice a Circular instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019. This circular stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued by the Department before the High Court if the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/-. As the tax effect in these cases was stated to be less than this monetary limit, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded, and the connected civil miscellaneous petitions were closed.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on a Circular Instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No. 17/2019 dated August 8, 2019. This circular stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued by the Department before the High Court if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). In the present case, the tax effect was stated to be less than this monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded.

The High Court held that it was not in agreement with the Revenue's submissions. The Court reasoned that once the basis for penalty proceedings (the assessment order) is under challenge before the High Court and subsequently the Supreme Court, there is no occasion for the Department to levy penalty. The Court further noted that in the event the High Court's order is reversed by the Supreme Court, the appellant has a time limit from the date of the Supreme Court's order to levy penalty. The Court also pointed out that Section 275 of the Income Tax Act provides a six-month time limit for penalty proceedings, which, under Section 275(1)(a), would start from the date of the Supreme Court's order. Finding no substantial questions of law, the High Court confirmed the order of the Appellate Tribunal and dismissed the appeal with liberty to the Revenue to levy penalty from the date of the Supreme Court's order.

The High Court allowed the appeal of the assessee, following its own prior judgment in M/s. National Company Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, decided on 08.04.2019. The Court held that on the retirement of a partner from a firm, there is an allotment of the partner's interest in the firm, which represents their share in the partnership assets. This is not considered a transfer of interest in the partnership assets to the continuing partners for consideration, and therefore, it does not attract capital gains tax liability under Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act. The Court clarified that what the retiring partner receives is their share in the partnership, worked out by taking accounts, and not consideration for relinquishing their interest. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The issue of interest under Section 234B was not explicitly discussed in the provided excerpt, but the overall allowance of the appeal implies it was also decided in favour of the assessee.

The High Court noted that the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue brought to its notice a Circular instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No. 17/2019 dated August 8, 2019. This circular stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1 Crore. In the present case, the tax effect was stated to be less than this monetary limit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as not pressed. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law.

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on a Circular instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August 2019. This circular stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued by the Department before the High Court if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). In the present cases, the tax effect was stated to be less than this monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded.

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on a Circular Instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019. This circular stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). The Court noted that in the instant cases, the tax effect was less than this monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded.

The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. The Court noted that the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue brought to its notice a Circular instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019. This circular stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/-. In the present case, the tax effect was stated to be less than this monetary limit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded.

The High Court noted that the learned Standing Counsel for the Department brought to its notice a Circular instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No. 17/2019, dated 8th August 2019. This circular stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). In the present case, the tax effect was stated to be less than this monetary limit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as withdrawn. The substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded.

The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department brought to the notice of the Court a Circular Instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No.17/2019, dated 8th August 2019. This circular stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only). In the instant case, the tax effect was stated to be less than this monetary limit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as not pressed. The substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded.

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeals were not being pursued due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore, and the tax effect in these cases was below this limit. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit. No costs were imposed.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission made by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant (Revenue) that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect, in terms of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular increased the monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore, and the tax effect in this case was stated to be below this threshold. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case to the Court to restore the appeal for hearing and decision on merits if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit fixed in the circular. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission made by the Revenue's counsel regarding the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court had been increased to Rs. 1 Crore, and the tax effect in this specific case was below that limit. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed for the appeal were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit fixed in the circular, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.

The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on their merits. The Revenue submitted that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No.17/2019 which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs.1 Crore. As the tax effect in this case was below the threshold limit, the appeal was dismissed on this ground. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground of low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The Court noted that the tax effect in this case was below the increased monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court, which is Rs.1 Crore. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit. No costs were awarded. The specific findings on the substantial questions of law were not adjudicated on merits.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission made by the Revenue's counsel that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, which was below the threshold limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court had been increased to Rs. 1 Crore by this circular. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, to be heard and decided on merits.

The High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of low tax effect, in line with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the Revenue's submission was based on the increased monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court. The substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission were expressly left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit fixed in the circular, allowing the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue on account of low tax effect, in light of the submissions made by the Revenue's counsel and CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The substantial question of law framed at the time of admission was left open. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to make a mention to restore the appeals if the tax effect in the respective cases is found to be above the threshold limit fixed in the circular, for hearing and decision on merits. The specific issue concerning the applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) to 'payable' versus 'paid' amounts, and the ITAT's order remanding the case for verification, was not decided on merits.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the Revenue's submission that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect, in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The Court noted that the tax effect in this case was below the threshold limit. Consequently, the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, allowing the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted the submission by the Revenue that the tax effect was less than the increased threshold limit for pursuing appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the substantial question of law framed for consideration was left open. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, allowing it to be heard and decided on merits. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial question of law.

The High Court did not decide the substantial question of law on its merits. The Revenue submitted that the appeals were not being pursued due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for appeals to the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The Court noted that the tax effect in these cases was below the threshold limit. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the ground of low tax effect. The substantial question of law was expressly left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit. No costs were awarded.

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the substantial questions of law framed in these appeals had already been answered in favour of the assessee in the assessee's own case, specifically in M/s. ISOFT R&D Pvt. Ltd., vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai (T.C.A.No.1248 of 2008), decided on 08.10.2018. This earlier decision followed the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. HCL Technologies Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 0719. Consequently, the High Court held that the substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. No costs were awarded.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on a submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect, in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular increased the monetary limit for pursuing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore, and the tax effect in this case was below this threshold. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit. No costs were imposed. The connected civil miscellaneous petition was also dismissed.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the Revenue's counsel submitted that the appeal was not being pursued due to the tax effect being less than the increased threshold limit of Rs. 1 Crore for appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the issues of Rule 8D(2)(ii) and the nature of interest-free funds were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect in these respective cases was less than the threshold limit stipulated in the circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without deciding the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeals if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, for hearing and decision on merits. No costs were awarded.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the Revenue's submission that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, falling below the threshold limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission were left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the allowability of depreciation on non-compete fees were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect was less than the threshold limit of Rs. 1 Crore. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed for the appeal were left undecided. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, allowing for a decision on merits. No costs were awarded.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the Revenue's submission that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which raised the monetary limit for appeals to the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The Court noted that the tax effect in this case was below the prescribed threshold. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed for the appeal were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, allowing the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeals were not being pursued due to a low tax effect, falling below the threshold limit of Rs. 1 Crore as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed for the appeals were left open. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeals if the tax effect in the respective cases was found to be above the fixed threshold limit, allowing them to be heard and decided on merits. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the Revenue's submission that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for appeals to the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The Court noted that the tax effect in this case was below the threshold. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit. No costs were awarded.

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeals were not being pursued due to low tax effect, in accordance with CBDT Circular No.17/2019. This circular increased the monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court to Rs.1 Crore. The Revenue stated that the tax effect in these cases was below this threshold. Consequently, the substantial questions of law, both those raised and framed, were left open. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeals if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, for hearing and decision on merits. No costs were awarded. The connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions (CMPs) were also dismissed.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on a submission by the Revenue's counsel citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated August 8, 2019. This circular increased the monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in the present case was less than this increased threshold limit. Consequently, the appeal was not pursued on merits. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law framed were left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, allowing for a decision on merits. No costs were awarded.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No.17/2019. This circular increased the monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court to Rs.1 Crore, and the tax effect in this case was below that limit. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, allowing the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, falling below the threshold limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed for the appeal were left open. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, allowing it to be heard and decided on merits. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular increased the monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The Revenue stated that the tax effect in this case was below this threshold. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were left open. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission made by the Revenue's counsel that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, as per Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. This circular increased the monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The Court noted that the tax effect in this particular case was below this threshold. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed for the appeal were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the fixed threshold limit, allowing for a decision on merits. No costs were awarded.

The High Court, in light of the submission by the Revenue that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019, dismissed the appeal. The Court noted that the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court had been increased to Rs.1 Crore and that the tax effect in this case was less than this threshold. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on account of low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed were left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, to be heard and decided on merits.

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission made by the Revenue's counsel regarding the low tax effect, referencing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular increased the monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore, and the tax effect in these respective cases was stated to be less than this limit. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on this administrative ground. The substantial question of law framed at the time of admission was left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeals if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit fixed in the circular, allowing them to be heard and decided on merits.

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the Revenue's submission that the appeals were not being pursued due to a low tax effect, falling below the threshold limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law framed for the appeals were left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeals if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, allowing for a decision on merits. The connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions (CMPs) were also dismissed as a consequence. No costs were awarded.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on account of low tax effect, as per the submissions made by the Revenue's counsel. The Court noted that the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court had been increased to Rs. 1 Crore by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, and the tax effect in this case was below that limit. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed were left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit in the future. No costs were awarded.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground of low tax effect, in line with CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The substantial question of law framed for the appeal was expressly left open. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit fixed in the circular, allowing it to be heard and decided on merits. No finding was given on the merits of the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D or the ITAT's deletion thereof.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on account of low tax effect, as per the submissions made by the Revenue's counsel. The Court noted that the substantial question of law raised in the appeal was left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit fixed in the CBDT circular, for the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were imposed. The specific finding of the ITAT on the substantial question of law, which was the subject of the appeal, was not adjudicated upon by the High Court.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the Revenue's submission that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary threshold for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The Court noted that the tax effect in this particular case was less than the stipulated threshold. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit. No costs were awarded.

The High Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds of low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No.17/2019 which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs.1 Crore. The Court noted that the tax effect in this case was below the threshold limit. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law.

The High Court noted that the assessee had filed another appeal, TCA.No.638 of 2019, which was allowed by the Court by a judgment dated 29.8.2019. In light of this prior judgment, the Court stated that no separate judgment was required in the present appeal. Therefore, the appeal was closed without delving into the merits of the substantial questions of law raised. The operative direction was to close the appeal. No specific finding was given on any of the issues raised, nor was any ratio decidendi established for these specific points in this judgment. The issue of rectification under Section 254(2) was also not decided on merits.

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeals were not being pursued due to a low tax effect, falling below the threshold limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No.17/2019. Consequently, the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were left undecided. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeals if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, allowing them to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.

The High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, which was below the threshold limit of Rs.1 Crore as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The Court noted that the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission were left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, to be heard and decided on merits. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law.

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the Revenue's submission that the appeals were not being pursued due to a low tax effect, in line with CBDT Circular No.17/2019 which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs.1 Crore. The Court noted that the tax effect in these cases was below the threshold limit. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit. The connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed. No costs were awarded.