Madras High Court Judgments — 2021

The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law. It was informed by the appellant's counsel that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Forms-3 were issued to the assessee for the respective assessment years (January 27, 2021, and January 31, 2021). Consequently, the appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeals. In light of this submission, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeals as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The core principle underlying this decision is the allowance of withdrawal of appeals when parties opt for a settlement scheme like Vivad Se Vishwas, thereby rendering the adjudication of the legal questions moot.

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 low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which raised the monetary threshold for appeals to Rs. 1 crore. The Court accepted this submission. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on account of the low tax effect.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. No costs were awarded.

The High Court of Judicature at Madras 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 03.03.2021 and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The issue of whether the ITAT had the power to review its order under Section 252(4) was not adjudicated upon.

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 due to subsequent developments. The Court noted that the Government of India had enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had been issued Form-3. Consequently, since the assessee had opted for the scheme, 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 allowability of the short-term capital loss and the absence of a colourable device were not reviewed or overturned by the High Court.

The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law. The Court was informed that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and had been issued Form-5 on 08.04.2021. 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 decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law or the applicability of Section 2(22)(e). The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court noted that the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, had been enacted for the resolution of disputed tax. Since the assessee had availed the benefit under this Act and the Department had issued Form-3, the Court found no useful purpose in keeping the appeal pending. The appeal was disposed of on the ground that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Court granted liberty to the assessee 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 undecided. The Department was directed to process the application under the Act at the earliest and communicate the decision to the assessee.

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 Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue submitted that the respondent/assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had been issued Form-3. Consequently, since the assessee had opted for the scheme, nothing further remained for adjudication in the appeal. The appeal was disposed of on this basis, with no costs awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the bad debt claim and the application of Section 36(1)(vii) were not reviewed or overturned by the High Court.

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 availed the benefits of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, having been issued Form-3. 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 findings of the ITAT on the validity of reopening under Section 147 and the classification of loose tools as capital expenditure were not adjudicated by the High Court.

The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law. The Court noted that the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, had been enacted, and the assessee had availed the scheme, with Form-3 being issued by the Department. Given these subsequent developments, the Court found no useful purpose in keeping the appeals pending. The appeals were disposed of on the ground that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the ultimate decision under the Act was not in their favour. The substantial questions of law were left undecided.

The High Court noted that the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, was enacted to provide for the resolution of disputed tax. The assessee had already been issued Form-3 under this Act, indicating they had availed its benefits. In light of this subsequent development, the Court found no useful purpose in keeping the appeal pending. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed on the ground that the assessee had availed the benefit under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The Court granted liberty to the assessee to restore the appeal if the ultimate decision under the Act was not in their favour. The substantial questions of law were left open. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal with liberty to restore.

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. The Court was informed that the assessee had already been issued Form-3 under this Act, indicating they had opted for the scheme. Consequently, the Court found no useful purpose in keeping the appeal pending. The Tax Case Appeal was dismissed on the ground that the assessee had availed the benefit under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The Court granted liberty to the assessee to restore the appeal if the ultimate decision under the Act was not in their favour. The substantial questions of law were left open. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal with liberty to restore and to process the applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act at the earliest.

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, to provide for the resolution of disputed tax. The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee informed the Court that Form-3 had been issued to the assessee on January 11, 2021, under this Act. Consequently, the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The High Court, in view of the submission made by the assessee's counsel, dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed. The specific issues framed by the assessee were not adjudicated upon.

The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration. The Court noted the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and was informed by the assessee's counsel that the assessee had been issued Form-3 under this Act. Consequently, the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal. In view of the assessee's submission, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No specific finding was given 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. It noted the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and was informed that the assessee had filed the necessary forms under this Act. Consequently, the Court found no useful purpose in keeping the appeal pending. The appeal was disposed of on the ground that the assessee had availed the benefit under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The Court granted liberty to the assessee to restore the appeal if the ultimate decision under the Act was not in their favour. The substantial questions of law were left open. No costs were awarded.

The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed by the assessee. 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 on 29.03.2021. Consequently, the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeals. In light of this submission, the High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals as withdrawn, with no costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed. No specific finding was given by the High Court on any of the substantial questions of law raised by the assessee or on the additions made by the revenue, as the matter was disposed of on procedural grounds due to the assessee's decision to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

The High Court, following the submissions of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant (Revenue) that the questions of law had already been decided against the Revenue in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-2010 and in other cited judgments, decided the questions of law against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The Court specifically referred to the ratio laid down in (2013) 255 CTR (Madras) 156 [Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprise], (2013) 353 ITR 356 (Bombay) [Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vandana Properties Enterprise], and (2013) 341 ITR 403 (Guj) [Commissioner of Income Tax v. Radhe Developers]. These decisions, as per the judgment, held that open terrace area could not be included in the built-up area for the purpose of deduction under Section 80IB(10) and that the project completion date should be considered based on the approvals obtained for the units. The Court found no reason to interfere with the ITAT's order and dismissed the appeal. The issue of whether the assessee was a developer and builder and complied with all conditions under Section 80IB(10) was implicitly affirmed by dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed by the assessee. Instead, the Court was informed that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The assessee's counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeals, having been issued Form-3 under the said Act. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. No specific findings were made by the High Court on the merits of the issues raised by the assessee or the ITAT's order. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, with no costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also 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 received Form-3 under this Act and sought permission to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The principle derived from this judgment is that appeals admitted on substantial questions of law can be disposed of as withdrawn if the assessee opts for resolution under a scheme like the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and seeks withdrawal.

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 appellant/assessee informed the Court that Form-3 had been issued to the assessee 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 substantial questions of law, and the issue of Goodwill expenditure was not adjudicated on merits. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law. The Court noted the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, for the resolution of disputed tax. The assessee's counsel 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 decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law, and no costs were awarded. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court decided not to adjudicate the substantial questions of law due to subsequent developments. The Court was informed that the assessee had filed the requisite Forms 1 & 2 under Section 4 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of on the ground that the assessee had availed the benefit under the Act. The Court directed the Department to process the application at the earliest and communicate the decision to the assessee. 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 condonation of delay application. The substantial questions of law were left undecided.

The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law. It 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 respondent/assessee submitted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had been issued Form-3 on December 10, 2020. Since the assessee had been issued Form-3, the High Court held that nothing survived for adjudication in the appeal. The Tax Case Appeal was disposed of on this basis, with no costs.

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, for the resolution of disputed tax. The learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submitted that the assessee had availed this scheme and had been issued Form-3 on 15.01.2021. Since the assessee had been issued Form-3, the High Court held that nothing survived for adjudication in the appeal. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was disposed of. No costs were awarded. The specific findings on the three substantial questions of law were not reached as the appeal was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

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 assessee submitted that the assessee had availed this scheme and had been issued Form-3 on 30.03.2021. Since the assessee had been issued Form-3, the High Court held that nothing further survived for adjudication in the appeal. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was disposed of on this basis, without deciding the substantial questions of law.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn on account of the Low Tax Effect, citing CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The Court noted that the monetary limit for pursuing appeals before the High Court had been increased to Rs.1 crore and that the tax effect in this particular case was below this limit. 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 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, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law. It 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 respondent/assessee submitted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had been issued Form-3 on March 9, 2021. Consequently, the High Court held that nothing further survived for adjudication in the appeal. The appeal was disposed of on this basis, with no costs awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the allowability of expenditure as current repairs or revenue expenditure, and the application of Section 80IA, were not reviewed or affirmed by the High Court.

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 submitted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had been issued Form-3 on March 8, 2021. Recording this submission, the Court found that nothing further survived for adjudication in the appeals. Therefore, the Tax Case Appeals were disposed of without delving into the merits of the substantial questions of law. 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 learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had been issued Form-3 on 08.03.2021. Consequently, the Court held that nothing survived for adjudication in the appeals. The appeals were disposed of on this basis, with no costs awarded. The specific findings of the Tribunal on the reassessment under Section 147 and the disallowance under Section 14A were not reviewed or adjudicated upon by the High Court.

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 on 12.02.2021. Consequently, the assessee's counsel 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, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The specific findings of the ITAT on the eligibility for deduction under Section 54B, the fulfillment of conditions, and the procedural aspects of evidence and cross-examination were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.

The High Court held that the substantial question of law raised in the appeal was covered by the decisions relied upon by the respondent-assessee. Specifically, the court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax, Central – III Vs. HCL Technologies Ltd. and various High Court judgments, including its own decision in T.C.A. No.975 of 2010. The reasoning, drawing from the cited precedents, was that to arrive at the profit from export business for Section 10A deduction, expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover. Any other interpretation would render the formula unworkable and absurd. The court found that the ITAT's order was in line with this established legal principle. Consequently, the question of law was decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeal was dismissed.

The High Court, in its judgment delivered by M. Duraiswamy, J., noted the submissions of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue. The Revenue stated 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 tax effect in this case was below this limit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn on account of the 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, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. 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 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 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. No costs were awarded.

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeals had already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another (2021 SCC OnLine SC 159). The Supreme Court had held that amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers for resale/use of software through EULAs/distribution agreements do not constitute royalty for the use of copyright. Consequently, such payments do not give rise to income taxable in India, and persons referred to in Section 195 were not liable to deduct TDS. The High Court noted that it had previously followed this Supreme Court ratio in its own common judgment dated March 30, 2021, in similar appeals involving the same assessee. Therefore, following the Supreme Court's ratio and its own precedent, the High Court decided the questions of law against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeals were dismissed.

The High Court, following its own Division Bench judgment dated 18.03.2020 in TCA No. 228 of 2011 (M/s. Comstar Automotive Technologies Private Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), decided the substantial questions of law against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The Court noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Yokogawa India Ltd. had held 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 computation of total income under Chapter VI. The Revenue's method of first setting off unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward losses, thereby reducing the income to nil and preventing the claim of Section 10A deduction, was found to be contrary to this established law. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that there was no quarrel with the proposition put forth by the Revenue's counsel. In light of the decision in CIT Vs. Manish D.Jain [HUF], the High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the ITAT and answered the substantial questions of law in favour of the Revenue. The reasoning was based on a previous High Court judgment that dealt with an identical issue and ruled in favour of the Revenue. The specific findings of the ITAT regarding the shifting of onus to the Revenue and the alleged perversity of its finding were effectively overturned by this High Court ruling. The operative direction was to set aside the ITAT's order.

The High Court held that the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law. The Court noted that the ITAT had extensively dealt with the factual position, which was also examined by the CIT(A). Regarding the estimation of sales based on packing material, the ITAT found that the assessee used two types of packing material (primary and secondary), and the cost of packing material was higher than the sale price of turmeric powder per Kg. The ITAT also identified an arithmetical error by the AO, who mistakenly added an extra '0' to the sales quantity. Furthermore, the ITAT considered that some packing material was for closing stock and that the AO's calculation of finished product manufactured did not account for the net increase in closing stock. The ITAT concluded that in the absence of material showing inflated purchases or sales, the estimation of probable sales based on packing material consumed was not justified. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding the total turnover to be 19,75,167.60 Kgs as against the AO's estimate of 37,90,500 Kgs. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the ITAT's order.

The High Court noted that an identical issue had been considered by a Division Bench of the same court in CIT Vs. Manish D.Jain [HUF], which was answered in favour of the Revenue. However, due to the subsequent development that the respondent/assessee opted to avail the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the Court granted liberty to the assessee to restore the appeal. This restoration would be permissible in the event the ultimate decision taken on the declaration filed under Section 4 of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act is not in favour of the assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry is directed to entertain it without insisting on a condonation of delay application and place it before the appropriate Division Bench. The Tax Case Appeal was disposed of with this liberty. The Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The High Court noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, with orders passed on 21.1.2021. While acknowledging that an identical issue had been decided in favour of the Revenue in the case of CIT Vs. Manish D.Jain [HUF], the Court granted the assessee liberty to restore the appeal if the ultimate decision under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was not in their favour. If such a prayer was made, the Registry was directed to entertain it without insisting on a delay condonation application. The Tax Case Appeal was disposed of with this liberty. The Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits due to the subsequent development regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The High Court disposed of the appeal with liberty granted to the assessee to restore the appeal if the ultimate decision under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is not in their favour. The Court noted that an identical issue had been decided in favour of the Revenue in CIT Vs. Manish D.Jain [HUF]. However, due to the assessee availing the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the appeal was not decided on merits. The Court directed that if the assessee files a miscellaneous petition for restoration, the Registry shall entertain it without insisting on a delay condonation application and place it before the appropriate Division Bench. No costs were imposed. The specific findings on the three substantial questions of law were not elaborated upon due to the disposal of the appeal.

The High Court acknowledged that the appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law. However, a significant subsequent development occurred: the respondent-assessee opted to avail the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and an order was passed on 20.1.2021. While the Court noted a previous decision in CIT Vs. Manish D.Jain [HUF] [(2020) 122 Taxmann.com 180] which was in favour of the Revenue on an identical issue, the Court granted the assessee liberty to restore the appeal if the ultimate decision on the declaration filed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was not in their favour. The Court directed that if such a prayer is made, the Registry should entertain it without insisting on a delay condonation application. The appeal was disposed of with this liberty, and no costs were imposed. The specific questions of law were not decided on merits due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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 Tax Case Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No finding was reached on the merits of the foreign study expenses or the disallowance under Section 14A. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue and set aside the impugned order passed by the ITAT. The Court found that an identical issue had been considered by a Division Bench of the High Court, to which one of the judges was a party, in the case of CIT Vs. Manish D.Jain [HUF] [(2020) 122 Taxmann.com 180], and that issue was answered in favour of the Revenue. In light of this precedent, the High Court held that the substantial questions of law framed were answered in favour of the Revenue. The reasoning was that the ITAT's order was contrary to the established principles of burden of proof and the assessment exercise already undertaken by the Assessing Officer. The operative direction was to set aside the ITAT's order.

The High Court held that there was no substantial question of law arising for consideration in the appeal. The court noted that the ITAT had remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to contentions of lack of opportunity and violation of principles of natural justice. The High Court found no good ground to interfere with the ITAT's order. The assessee's argument that the notice under Section 148 was not served and that the Assessing Officer in Delhi lacked jurisdiction was not found to be a basis for interference with the ITAT's decision to remand. The court also clarified that the assessee would be entitled to raise all issues on facts and law before the Assessing Officer during the fresh adjudication. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

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, was enacted to provide for the resolution of disputed tax. The learned counsel for the appellant informed the Court that the assessee had been issued Form-3 under this Act and 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 or reasoning of the ITAT on Section 54F or the definition of "appurtenant" land were not discussed or adjudicated by the High Court.

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 and sought permission to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeals as withdrawn. No finding was reached on the merits of the substantial questions of law, and no principle could be extracted as the ratio decidendi for future cases. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals as withdrawn.

The High Court noted that the assessee had filed a declaration/undertaking under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on 29.1.2021 and was awaiting orders. In light of this subsequent event, the Court directed the Competent Authority to process the application/declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the decision on the Vivad Se Vishwas declaration was not in their favour. The Court stated that upon such a request, the Registry would entertain the prayer for restoration without insisting on a delay condonation application and place it before the appropriate Division Bench. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was disposed of with the aforementioned liberty, and the substantial questions of law raised were left open. No costs were awarded. The operative direction is to process the Vivad Se Vishwas application and allow restoration of the appeal if needed, leaving the substantial questions of law undecided.

The High Court disposed of the Tax Case Appeal by granting the assessee liberty to restore the appeal if the decision under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was not favourable. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were left undecided. The court noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and an order was passed on 10.3.2021. The operative direction was that if the assessee made a prayer for restoration via a miscellaneous petition, the Registry should place it before the appropriate Division Bench without insisting on condonation of delay. The appeal was disposed of with this liberty, and no costs were awarded. The reasoning for this disposal was the pendency and subsequent development concerning the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, which obviated the need for the court to decide the substantial questions of law at that juncture. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where a settlement scheme like Vivad se Vishwas is invoked and an order is passed, the High Court may grant liberty to restore the appeal if the outcome of the scheme is unsatisfactory, leaving the substantial questions of law open.

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the Revenue's submission regarding the 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 the circular, and the tax effect in the respective cases was below this limit. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on this ground. The substantial question of law raised by the Revenue was expressly left undecided. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to file a petition to restore the appeals if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit in the future. The connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP) was also closed.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn 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 increased threshold limit for pursuing appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed in 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. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law.