Loading High Court cases…
565 orders · Page 5 of 12
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn on account of low tax effect, as per the submissions made by the Revenue citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.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 this circular, and the tax effect in the present case was below this threshold. 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 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 specific finding of the Tribunal on the revised return was not adjudicated upon by the High Court.
The High Court decided the substantial questions of law against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2020 (113) taxmann.com 74 (SC) [Commissioner of Income-Tax III v. Mphasis Ltd.], the appeal was dismissed. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had dismissed a Special Leave Petition in a similar case, and a Division Bench of the same High Court had also decided the issue in favour of the assessee by following the Supreme Court's decision. The reasoning implicitly accepts the assessee's alternative claim under Section 10A and the Tribunal's direction to verify its conditions, as well as the reliance on established precedents. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law. It noted the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, which provides for the resolution of disputed tax. The assessee informed the court that they had received Form-3 under this Act and sought to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration. The court was informed by the assessee's counsel that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and had been issued Form-3. Consequently, the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeals. In view of this submission, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeals as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings or reasoning of the ITAT on the issues raised by the assessee are not detailed in this High Court judgment, as the appeals were disposed of on a procedural development.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn on account of low tax effect, as submitted by the Revenue. The Court noted that the Revenue cited CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which raised the monetary threshold for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 crore, and stated that the tax effect in this case was below that limit. Consequently, the appeal was not pursued on merits. The substantial questions of law were expressly 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 High Court noted that the Revenue's Senior Standing Counsel submitted 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 tax effect in this case was stated to be below this threshold. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law were expressly 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 decided not to adjudicate the substantial questions of law due to subsequent developments. The enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, provided a mechanism for resolving disputed tax matters. The assessee's counsel informed the court that Form-3 had been issued to the assessee under this Act and requested permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No specific finding was given on the merits of the substantial questions of law raised by the assessee. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court did not adjudicate the substantial questions of law framed for consideration. This was due to a subsequent development: the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020), which provided for the resolution of disputed tax. The assessee informed the Court that they had already been issued Form-3 under this Act and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No finding was given on the merits of the substantial questions of law, and no specific ratio decidendi was established concerning those questions. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration. This was due to subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Court was informed that the assessee had been issued Form-3 under this Act and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. In view of the assessee's submission, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the reopening of assessment and the set-off of losses/depreciation were not adjudicated by the High Court.
The High Court decided the first substantial question of law against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. and the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Chennai Vs. India Cements Ltd. The Court held that the reassessment was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion without any tangible material. The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Kelvinator of India Ltd. held that post 1-4-1999, while the power to reopen is wider, it cannot be based on a mere change of opinion, which would give arbitrary powers to the AO. The Division Bench in India Cements Ltd. further clarified that after 1-4-1999, reopening requires tangible material and a live link with the formation of belief, and that reassessment beyond four years without fresh material is a case of change of opinion. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed. Questions (ii) to (v) were left open to be decided in an appropriate appeal.
The High Court did not decide the substantial question of law framed for consideration. This was due to subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Court was informed by the learned counsel for the assessee that Form-3 had been issued to the assessee under the said Act, and the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The issue regarding the entitlement to set off carried forward depreciation was not adjudicated on merits.
The High Court decided the first question of law in T.C.A.No.300 of 2021 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, following the ratio laid down in Commissioner of Income-tax-12 Vs. Manjula J. Shah ([2011] 16 taxmann.com 42 (Bombay)). This decision held that the base year for calculating the indexed cost of acquisition should be 01.04.1981, even if the asset was inherited. The Court noted that the Revenue's counsel fairly conceded that this issue had been decided against the Revenue. Questions (ii) and (iii) raised by the Revenue in T.C.A.No.300 of 2021 were left open to be decided in an appropriate appeal. The question of law in T.C.A.No.301 of 2021 was also decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. This was based on the assessee's reliance on the judgments in Tilokchand & Sons Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-II (4), Madurai ([2019] 105 taxmann.com 151 (Madras)) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vinay Mishra ([2020] 121 taxmann.com 243 (Karnataka)), which held that the amendment requiring property to be in India for Section 54F exemption was prospective, and thus, investments made outside India prior to 01.04.2015 were eligible. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed.
The High Court did not decide the substantial question of law framed for consideration. This was due to subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submitted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and that the Department had issued Form – 3 on 15.04.2021. Since Form – 3 had been issued to the assessee, the High Court noted that nothing further survived for adjudication in the appeal. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was disposed of on this basis, without any decision on the merits of the substantial question of law. No costs were awarded.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the Revenue's counsel fairly submitted that the issues involved had already been decided against the Revenue by a Division Bench of the same Court in T.C.A.No.420 of 2020 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai – 34 Vs. Smt.Deepa Vijay) dated 07.12.2020. In that judgment, the Division Bench had held that the entire issue revolved around the factual matrix, which had been thoroughly examined by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The Division Bench found no substantial question of law arising for consideration and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Following this precedent, the High Court decided the questions of law against the Revenue and in favour of the assessees, thereby dismissing the Tax Case Appeals. No costs were awarded.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration. This was due to subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Court was informed by the assessee's counsel that Form-3 had been issued to the assessee under this Act, and the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No finding was reached on the merits of the substantial questions of law, and therefore, no ratio decidendi can be extracted from this judgment regarding those specific legal points. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law. The court was informed that the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, had been enacted for the resolution of disputed tax. The assessee's counsel stated that Form-3 had been issued to the assessee under this Act and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeals were disposed of on procedural grounds.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law. The Court was informed that the assessee had been issued Form-3 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, which provides for the resolution of disputed tax. Consequently, the learned counsel for the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeals. In view of this submission, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeals as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration. This was due to subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Court was informed by the assessee's counsel that the assessee had been issued Form-3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the assessee's counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The High Court granted this permission and dismissed the Tax Case Appeals as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals as withdrawn.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn on account of low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the Revenue's Senior Standing Counsel submitted that the appeal was not being pursued because the tax effect was less than the increased monetary threshold for High Court appeals. 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. No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
The High Court did not decide the substantial question of law framed for consideration. This was due to subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Court was informed by the assessee's counsel that the assessee had been issued Form-3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act on 24.02.2021. Consequently, the assessee's counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal. In light of this submission, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No finding was reached on the merits of the disallowance of set off of carried forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation under Section 72A. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration. This was due to subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee informed the Court that the assessee had been issued Form-3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act on 20.04.2021 and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration. This was due to subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The learned counsel for the assessee informed the Court that the assessee had been issued Form-3 under this Act and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No specific finding was given on the merits of the substantial questions of law, nor was any ratio decidendi established for future reference on those points. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court did not decide the substantial question of law framed for consideration. This was due to subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Court was informed that the assessee had been issued Form-3 under this Act, indicating a resolution of the disputed tax. Consequently, the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal. In view of this submission, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT or the High Court on the merits of the exemption claim are not discussed as the appeal was withdrawn.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration. This was due to subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Court was informed by the assessee's counsel that the assessee had been issued Form-3 under this Act and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No finding was reached on the merits of the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) or the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act.
The High Court allowed the tax case appeals to a limited extent. Substantial question of law nos. 1 and 2, relating to disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D, were left open and the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee. Substantial question of law no.3 was not pressed by the assessee, as the Assessing Officer had granted relief following a remand by the ITAT, and thus, it was not required to be answered. For substantial question of law no.4, the High Court answered it in favour of the assessee, citing a previous judgment of the same court in T.C.A.No.451 of 2018 and a reported decision in [2021] 125 taxmann.com 206 (Madras) (Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd.). Consequently, the Tax Case Appeals were dismissed on this point. No costs were awarded.
The High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn on account of low tax effect, as per the submissions made by the Revenue based on CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The Court noted that the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court had been increased to Rs.1 crore and that the tax effect in these cases was below this limit. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The substantial questions of law framed by the Revenue 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 fixed in the Circular, for hearing and decision on merits. No costs were awarded.
The High Court decided not to adjudicate the substantial questions of law due to the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The court was informed that the assessee had availed the benefit under this Act and was issued Form-3. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as no useful purpose would be served by keeping them pending. The court granted liberty to the assessee to restore the appeals if the ultimate decision under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act was not in their favour. In such an event, the Registry was directed to entertain a Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration without insisting on a delay condonation application. The substantial questions of law were left open.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the Revenue's counsel fairly submitted that the substantial questions of law were covered by a previous Division Bench judgment of the same High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd. ([2021] 125 taxmann.com 206 (Madras)), which in turn followed an earlier judgment in S.P. Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. ([2021] 125 taxmann.com 206 (Madras)). These judgments had held that carbon credit receipts are capital receipts and not taxable. The Court also referred to the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax-IV v. My Home Power Ltd., which affirmed the view that carbon credits are an offshoot of environmental concerns, not business, and are capital receipts. Consequently, substantial question of law no. 4 was answered in favour of the assessee. Substantial question of law no. 3 was not pressed by the assessee as relief was granted on remand. Substantial questions of law nos. 1 and 2 were left open, with the issue under Section 14A read with Rule 8D being remanded to the Assessing Officer.
The High Court, following its own previous judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd. and S.P.Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, decided the substantial questions of law against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The Court noted that the issue of carbon credits being treated as capital receipts and not taxable had been considered by several High Courts, including the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Ltd. and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. My Home Power Ltd., which held such receipts to be capital in nature. The Court also referred to the Tribunal's reasoning that Carbon Credits are an offshoot of environmental concerns, not business, and no asset is generated in the course of business. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed. The Court did not explicitly address the third substantial question of law as it was not pressed by the assessee due to a remand order by the Tribunal which granted relief. The first two questions were answered in favour of the assessee.
The High Court did not decide the substantial question of law framed for consideration. The Court was informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the assessee had been issued Form-3 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the learned counsel for the appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeal. In view of this submission, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific finding of the ITAT that the amounts were taxable as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) was not adjudicated upon by the High Court.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn on account of the Low Tax Effect, citing Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the tax effect in this case was less than the threshold limit stipulated in the circular. Consequently, the substantial question of law framed by the Revenue was left open. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal for hearing and decision on merits if the tax effect was found to be above the fixed threshold limit. No costs were awarded, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
The High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn on account of low tax effect, in line with CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The substantial questions of law 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 fixed in the circular, allowing for a decision on merits. No costs were imposed. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. The specific findings or reasoning of the ITAT on the substantial questions of law were not adjudicated by the High Court in this order.
The High Court noted that the Revenue's 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 tax effect in this case was stated to be below this threshold. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The substantial questions of law were expressly left undecided. 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 costs were awarded.
The High Court did not decide the substantial question of law framed for consideration due to subsequent developments. The enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, provided a mechanism for the resolution of disputed tax. The assessee informed the Court that they had been issued Form-3 under this Act on 23.02.2021 and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn on account of low tax effect, as per the submissions made by the Revenue referencing CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The Court noted that the tax effect was less than the threshold limit 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 ITAT on the penalty deletion and the interpretation of Section 271AA and Section 92D/Rule 10B were not adjudicated upon by the High Court due to the withdrawal of the appeal.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law. The Court was informed that the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, had been enacted for the resolution of disputed tax. The learned counsel for the assessee informed the Court that Form-3 had already been issued to the assessee on January 1, 2021, under the said Act. Consequently, the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal. In view of this submission, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific issues raised in the substantial questions of law were not adjudicated upon.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration. This was due to the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The learned counsel for the assessee informed the court that the assessee had been issued Form-3 under this Act and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings or reasoning on the substantial questions of law by the ITAT or the High Court are not part of this judgment as the appeal was withdrawn before adjudication on merits.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration. This was due to subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee informed the Court that the assessee had been issued with Form-3 on 15.04.2021 under the said Act and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. In view of this submission, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, there is no finding on the merits of the disallowance of service tax or the issue of double disallowance. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the subscription charges collected by the assessee were not its income but were collected on behalf of M/s. Sun TV Network Limited and remitted to them. The assessee was entitled to receive a fixed commission for these services. Since tax had already been deducted and paid to the Government at the time of collection, the assessee was eligible for credit of the TDS while receiving its commission income. The court found that the subscription collected could not be construed as the assessee's income and was therefore not taxable in its hands. The amounts collected were credited to a separate account and debited when paid to M/s. Sun TV Network Limited. The court noted that the amended provision of Rule 37BA(2)(i) came into effect only on 01.11.2011 and was not applicable to the cases under appeal. The court found no error in the ITAT's orders and dismissed the appeals. The ratio is that TDS credit can be claimed on income not offered to tax if that income is not the assessee's own but is collected and remitted to the rightful owner, and the TDS was deducted at source on payments made to the assessee for services rendered.
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the ITAT and CIT(A). Regarding the first issue, the Court noted that the Supreme Court in CIT-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation, Ponna [(2018) 402 ITR 441] held that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was treated as application of income, rejecting the double-benefit argument. The Court found that the ITAT and CIT(A) should have followed this binding precedent. For the second issue concerning the set-off of excess application of income, the Court referred to its own Division Bench judgment in CIT v. Matriseva Trust [(2000) 242 ITR 20], which categorically decided in favour of the assessee. The Court observed that the ITAT and CIT(A) failed to consider this binding judgment. The Court also strongly criticized the CIT(A)'s unwarranted remarks about High Court judgments, stating that subordinate authorities are bound by High Court decisions. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh, taking into consideration the ratio in CIT v. Matriseva Trust, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The third issue regarding the non-consideration of binding decisions was implicitly addressed by the Court's decision to set aside the orders and remit the matter.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration. The Court noted that the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, had been enacted to provide for the resolution of disputed tax. The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee informed the Court that the assessee had been issued Form-3 on 25.01.2021, and consequently, sought permission to withdraw the appeal. In view of this submission, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the capital versus revenue nature of the expenditure and the allowability of replacement costs were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.
The High Court noted that it was not necessary to decide the substantial questions of law due to the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and the assessee's subsequent filing of the requisite forms under this Act. The Court observed that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending. The Tax Case Appeal was disposed of on the ground that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Act. The Department was directed to process the application at the earliest. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the ultimate decision under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act was not in their favour. The substantial questions of law were left open.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law. It was informed by the learned counsel for the appellant (assessee) that the assessee had been issued with Form-3 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeals. In light of this submission, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeals as withdrawn. No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The court did not make any findings on the merits of the substantial questions of law raised by the assessee.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras decided not to adjudicate the substantial question of law framed for consideration. This decision was based on subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Court was informed that the assessee had been issued Form-3 under this Act, indicating a resolution of the disputed tax. Consequently, the assessee's counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Court granted this permission. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, and no decision was made on the merits of the substantial question of law. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court noted that it was not necessary to decide the substantial questions of law due to subsequent developments. The Government of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, for the resolution of disputed tax. The learned counsel for the assessee informed the Court that the assessee had been issued Form-3 under this Act and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The miscellaneous petitions connected to the appeal were also closed.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration. This was due to subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submitted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had been issued with Form-3 on December 30, 2020. Recording this submission, the Court found that nothing further survived for adjudication in the appeal. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was disposed of. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the storage fee and its taxability on a pro rata basis were not reviewed or affirmed by the High Court.
The High Court decided not to adjudicate the substantial questions of law framed for consideration due to subsequent developments. The Government of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, to provide for the resolution of disputed tax. The learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submitted that the assessee had availed this scheme and was issued Form-3 on 30.12.2020. Consequently, the Court held that nothing further survived for adjudication in the appeal. The Tax Case Appeal was disposed of on this basis, with no costs awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the pro-rata taxation of storage fees and the reasoning behind it were not re-examined by the High Court.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as withdrawn. The dismissal was based on the Revenue's submission that the appeals were 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 these cases was below the threshold limit. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed 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 imposed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
The High Court noted that the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, was enacted to provide for the resolution of disputed tax. The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee informed the Court that the assessee had already been issued with Form-3 on 30.12.2020, under the said Act, and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. In view of this submission, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. The Court did not decide the substantial question of law framed for consideration. No costs were awarded.
The High Court decided not to adjudicate the substantial questions of law due to subsequent developments. The enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, provided a mechanism for resolving disputed tax matters. The assessee had availed the benefit of this Act by filing the necessary forms. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no useful purpose. The Tax Case Appeal was disposed of on the ground that the assessee had filed the requisite forms under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The Department was directed to process the application at the earliest. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the ultimate decision under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act was not in their favour. In such an event, the Registry was directed to entertain the restoration petition without insisting on a delay condonation application. The substantial questions of law were left undecided.