Loading High Court cases…
506 orders · Page 9 of 11
The High Court noted the submission by the Revenue that the main appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had already been disposed of. In light of this subsequent development during the pendency of the Tax Case Appeal, the High Court held that the necessity to decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration would not arise as the issues had become academic. Therefore, the appeal was closed. The Court left the substantial questions of law open to be agitated in any other proceedings if the respondent-assessee or any other assessee deems it appropriate. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to close the appeal.
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, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. Consequently, the substantial question of law framed for the appeal was left undecided. 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 costs were awarded.
The High Court noted that the Revenue's submission that the main appeal before the Tribunal had already been disposed of was recorded. In light of this subsequent development during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the Court held that the necessity to decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration no longer arose, as the issues had become academic. Consequently, the appeal was closed, leaving the substantial questions of law to be agitated in any other proceedings if deemed appropriate by the respondent-assessee or any other assessee. No costs were awarded.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras 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, 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, and the tax effect in this case was stated to be below this limit. 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 costs were awarded.
The High Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the main appeals had already been disposed of by the ITAT. Consequently, the Revenue stated that these appeals were not pressed. In light of this subsequent development during the pendency of the appeals, the High Court found that the necessity to decide the substantial questions of law framed earlier would not arise, as the issues had become academic. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as infructuous. The substantial questions of law were expressly left open and not 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 low tax effect, as per Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the CBDT, 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, for a decision on merits. No costs were awarded.
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 monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court had been increased to Rs. 1 Crore by this circular, and the tax effect in the present case was below this threshold. Consequently, the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue 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 fixed threshold limit, allowing for a hearing and decision on merits. No costs were awarded. The specific findings on the substantial questions of law by the Tribunal are not detailed as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.
The High Court noted that the Revenue had submitted that the main appeals before the Tribunal had already been disposed of. In light of this subsequent development during the pendency of the appeals before the High Court, the Court found that the necessity to decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration would not arise as the issues had become academic. Therefore, the appeals were closed. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were left to be agitated in any other proceedings if the respondent-assessee or any other assessee deemed it appropriate. No costs were awarded. The judgment did not decide the merits of the substantial questions of law.
The High Court noted the submission of the Revenue's counsel that the main appeals had already been disposed of by the ITAT. Consequently, the Revenue stated that these appeals were not pressed. In light of this subsequent development during the pendency of the appeals, the High Court found that the necessity to decide the substantial question of law raised by the Revenue would not arise, as the issue had become academic. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as infructuous, and the substantial question of law was left open. No costs were awarded. The connected CMPs were also dismissed.
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 Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the CBDT, which increased the monetary limit for pursuing 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 question of law framed for the appeal was 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, allowing for a decision on merits. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.
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. 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, and the tax effect in the present case was below this limit. Consequently, the substantial question of law framed at the time of admission was 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, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on account of low tax effect, in line with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs. 1 Crore and that 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 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 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, falling below the threshold limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. 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 finding was reached on the substantial questions of law themselves.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted the submission by the Revenue that the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit for pursuing appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the substantial question of law framed at the time of admission was left undecided. 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 that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular increased the monetary threshold for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore, and the tax effect in this particular case was stated to be below this limit. Consequently, the substantial question of law framed at the time of admission 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, for a decision on merits. No costs were awarded.
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 in this case was less than the threshold limit of Rs. 1 Crore for pursuing appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without deciding the substantial questions of law. 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, for a decision on merits. No specific finding was given on any of the issues raised, nor was any ratio decidendi established for future cases.
The High Court dismissed the appeal 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 filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court. 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 decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law.
The Revenue's counsel submitted that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No.17/2019 which increased the monetary limit for appeals to the High Court to Rs.1 Crore. The tax effect in this case was stated to be below this threshold. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds of low tax effect. 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.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. The Revenue submitted that they were not pursuing the appeals due to 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 these appeals was below the threshold, the appeals were dismissed on this ground. The substantial questions of law were expressly 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. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals.
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, which fell 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 costs were awarded. The Tribunal's findings on the reassessment order and the validity of reopening the assessment were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.
The High Court dismissed the appeal on account of low tax effect, as submitted by the Revenue's counsel, referencing CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The Court noted that the tax effect was below the threshold limit for pursuing appeals before the High Court. 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 threshold limit in the future. No costs were awarded.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on account 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 below the threshold limit of Rs. 1 Crore for pursuing 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 Tribunal on the four substantial questions of law were not discussed or adjudicated upon by the High Court due to the dismissal on procedural grounds.
The High Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds of low tax effect, as submitted by the Revenue, referencing 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 by this circular and that the tax effect in the present case was below this 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 in the future. No costs were awarded.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. The Revenue submitted that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The tax effect in this case was stated to be below this threshold. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds of low tax effect. The substantial questions of law were left open, and 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 High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue on account of low tax effect, in light of CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The Court noted that the tax effect in the respective cases was less than the threshold limit of Rs.1 Crore for pursuing appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the substantial questions of law raised in the appeals 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 Tribunal's findings on the ownership of the asset, genuineness of the windmill transfer, and pro-rata allocation of cost were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.
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 citing 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 by the said circular, and the tax effect in this case was less than this 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, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on account of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The Court noted that the Revenue was not pursuing the appeal because the tax effect was below the threshold limit of Rs.1 Crore. 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 disallowance of interest and loss on consumer durables were 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 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 this case was below the threshold limit. 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, for a decision on merits. No costs were awarded.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on account of low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No.17/2019 which increased the monetary limit for pursuing 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 dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the Revenue's submission that it was not pursuing the appeal due to low tax effect, as per 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, and the tax effect in the present case was below this threshold. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this ground. 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, allowing the appeal to be heard and decided on merits.
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 that the Revenue's counsel submitted that the appeal was not being pursued because the tax effect was below the increased monetary limit for High Court appeals. Consequently, the substantial question of law framed by the Court 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, allowing for a decision on merits. No costs were imposed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on account of low tax effect, as submitted 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 less than the threshold. The substantial questions of law framed for the appeal were left open. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the fixed threshold, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were imposed.
The High Court noted that the present appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act was against an interim order of the ITAT concerning the grant of stay. The substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue pertained to the ITAT's power to grant stay beyond 365 days, contrary to the third proviso of Section 254(2A). However, the Court observed that these questions had become academic. This was because the main appeal filed by the assessee before the ITAT had already been disposed of on 27.04.2017. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal against the interim stay order had become infructuous. The Court therefore disposed of the present appeal as having been rendered infructuous, leaving the questions raised by the Revenue open for adjudication in an appropriate future case. No costs were awarded.
The High 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 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. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law are kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The primary reason for dismissal was the issuance of CBDT 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). The Court noted that in the present case, the tax effect was less than this stipulated monetary limit. Consequently, 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 the Tribunal's decision was not legally sound. It relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Yokogawa India Ltd. The Court reiterated that deductions under Section 10A or 10B are to be made while computing the gross total income of the eligible undertaking under Chapter IV of the Act, not at the stage of computing total income under Chapter VI. The revenue's method of computing income by first setting off unabsorbed depreciation and thereby leaving no income to claim Section 10A deduction was found to be contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the substantial question of law was answered in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. 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 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 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 held that in light of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which enhances the monetary limits for filing appeals, and the submission by the Revenue that the tax effect under the impugned orders is less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, the Tax Case Appeals deserve dismissal. The Court accordingly dismissed the appeals. However, the Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law raised in these appeals are left open to be decided in an appropriate proceeding. No costs were awarded.
The High Court held that in light of the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the Revenue, and in accordance with Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019, which enhances the monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department before High Courts to Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, the present Tax Case Appeals deserve dismissal. The Court noted that the tax effect in these appeals was less than the revised monetary limit. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed. However, the Court explicitly stated that the question of law is left open and is to be decided in an appropriate proceeding. No costs were awarded.
The High Court held that the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT had exhaustively dealt with the issues and arrived at categorical findings in favour of the respondent/assessee. The Court found that substantial questions of law had already been answered in the negative by the lower appellate authorities. The CIT(Appeals) had ruled that the shares were held as investments and the income should be treated as capital gains, also noting that the price paid to public shareholders could not be treated as having a non-compete fee embedded. The ITAT had considered the market rate and the agreement's stipulation against paying a non-compete fee. The Court concluded that no substantial questions of law arose for consideration in the appeal before it.
The High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The court granted the assessee liberty to seek revival of the appeals if their application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, is rejected by the Revenue Department. The reasoning was based on the assessee's stated intention to opt for the scheme and the pending application, acknowledging the uncertainty of its acceptance. The court did not decide on the merits of the original appeals. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals with a conditional liberty to revive.
The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were to be dismissed as withdrawn. This decision was based on the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Revenue regarding the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular stipulates a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court. As the tax effect in the present case was stated to be less than this limit, the Revenue indicated that the appeals should not be pursued. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, without any costs. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was unsustainable. The Court found that the Assessing Officer had initially considered the materials related to the credit balance in Schedule 'G' and had requested the dropping of audit objections. Subsequently, issuing a second assessment order based on the very same facts amounted to a change of opinion, which is not permissible for reopening an assessment. The Court agreed with the ITAT's finding that the Assessing Officer had not independently satisfied himself about the escapement of income and that the reopening was not justified. The Court also noted that the CIT(A) had ordered the deletion of the deemed dividend addition, finding Section 2(22)(e) inapplicable. Therefore, the substantial question of law was answered in the negative, against the Revenue.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue brought to the court's notice Circular No. 17/2019 dated August 8, 2019, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). 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. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law remain open for determination in an appropriate case.
The High Court noted that the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue brought to its notice Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August 2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). 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. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as not pressed. The substantial questions of law were expressly left open for determination in an appropriate case.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. Instead, the Court took note of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates 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 the present case was stated to be less than this monetary limit, the Revenue's 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 noted that the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue brought to its notice Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). 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 not pressed. 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 did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. The Court noted a Circular instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August 2019. This circular stipulated 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). Since the tax effect in the instant cases was stated to be less than this monetary limit, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as not pressed. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No specific finding was given on any of the issues raised, nor was any ratio decidendi established for future cases. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals.
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 not pressed. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law remain open for determination in an appropriate case. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial question of law raised.
The High Court, respectfully following its own previous decisions in CIT Vs. Kikani Exports (P.) Limited [2014] 369 ITR 500 (Madras) and CIT Vs. ABT Limited [2015] 370 ITR 159 (Madras), answered the first question of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Court held that if the assessee exercises the option in terms of the second proviso to Rule 5(1A) of the Income Tax Rules at the time of furnishing the return of income, it suffices, and no separate letter, request, or intimation is required. This is because the prescribed form for returns filed under Section 139(1) makes a provision for exercising such an option. Consequently, the claim for depreciation @ 80% on the windmill was rightly allowed. In view of the first question being answered in favour of the assessee, the second question, regarding the reopening of assessment, did not require any answer. The appeal was disposed of in terms of these findings.