Loading High Court cases…
331 orders · Page 1 of 7
The High Court held that the provision for estimated loss on contracts was not an ascertained liability and therefore not allowable as a deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the provision as an ascertained liability, despite opportunities, was upheld. The Court found that while Accounting Standards are binding for book preparation, they are not binding for Income Tax purposes. The decision in Rotork Controls India Limited was distinguished as not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal's order for AY 2005-06 was also deemed not relevant as it dealt with warranty provisions. The alternative ground regarding reversal/utilization of provisions was not explicitly decided as the primary issue was dismissed. The Court noted that if actual losses are incurred in succeeding years, deduction can be claimed subject to reopening assessments. The substantial questions of law were answered against the appellant.
The High Court noted the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the availing of the Vivad Se Vishwas (VSV) Scheme. Consequently, the appellant prayed for the withdrawal of the present Tax Case Appeals. The Court allowed this request, dismissing the appeals as withdrawn. The Court also granted liberty to the appellant to revive these appeals in the event their application under the VSV Scheme was not accepted. No order as to costs was made.
The High Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that appeals against the ITAT's order in similar matters were decided on 30.06.2022. In view of this submission, the High Court stated that the present Tax Case Appeal stands closed. The judgment does not provide an independent finding on the merits of the issue regarding the deductibility of logo usage payments. The closure of the appeal is based on the concession made by the Revenue's counsel, implying that the Revenue did not wish to press the appeal further in light of recent judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the operative direction is to close the appeal, with no costs.
The High Court decided to dismiss the Tax Case Appeals (T.C.A. Nos. 824 & 825 of 2016) filed by M/s. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Limited for non-prosecution. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel had previously stated they had no instructions as the appellant was unreachable, and on the day of hearing, there was no representation. The dismissal was granted with liberty to the assessee to seek restoration of the appeals within a reasonable time. Consequently, the Writ Appeal (W.A. No. 1222 of 2016) filed by the Department was allowed. The reasoning for allowing the Writ Appeal was directly linked to the dismissal of the Tax Case Appeals for non-prosecution. No costs were awarded. The connected C.M.P.s were closed.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant (revenue) have already been answered by this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. Lanco Tanjore Power Co. Ltd. reported in [2021] 434 ITR 671 (Madras) in favour of the assessee. The Court noted that although the Income Tax Department had preferred an appeal (SLP Appeal (C) No. 16544 of 2021) against the Lanco Tanjore Power Co. Ltd. judgment, the High Court was not inclined to admit the present appeal as the issue, as of that date, stood covered in favour of the respondent (assessee). Therefore, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed. The Court also stated that if the Hon'ble Supreme Court reverses the order in the Lanco Tanjore Power Co. Ltd. case, it would be open for the Department to re-open the issue in the present case. No costs were awarded.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) submitted that he was not pressing the tax case appeal and had made an endorsement to that effect. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the tax case appeal as not pressed. No costs were awarded. The judgment does not contain any findings on the merits of the case or the underlying issues that might have been before the Tribunal. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The High Court held that the Tax Case Appeal filed by the Revenue requires no interference. The Court found that the issue before it was squarely covered by its own previous decisions in Bashyam Constructions (P.) Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax and Commissioner of Income Tax V. Sanghvi and Doshi Enterprise. The latter decision was also affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, based on these precedents, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. No costs were awarded. The specific issue decided by the ITAT and the reasoning behind its order are not detailed in this judgment, as the High Court's decision is based on the principle of stare decisis.
The High Court noted the submission by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, for the Assessment Year 2004-2005, and a Form 5 order for full and final settlement of tax arrears was issued on 21.09.2021. The learned counsel for the assessee stated they were not aware of the present appeal. In view of these subsequent developments, the Court was of the opinion that nothing survived for adjudication in the appeal. The Tax Case Appeal was accordingly disposed of. The specific findings on the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were not adjudicated upon due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
The High Court held that the Tax Case Appeal has become infructuous. This decision was based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and a memo filed on 07.11.2022. The memo indicated that a subsequent appeal filed by the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITA No.1161/CHNY/2017) against an order that favoured the assessee had been decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT's order dated 10.03.2021. This subsequent ITAT decision rendered the issue in the present appeal final and thus moot. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous, with no costs. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds.
The High Court noted that the Assessee had availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, for the Assessment Year 2012-2013, and a full and final settlement order had been issued on 21.09.2021. The Revenue's counsel submitted that in light of this subsequent development, the appeal should be disposed of. The Assessee's counsel was not aware of the present appeal. Consequently, the High Court held that nothing survived for adjudication in the appeal. Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the Appellant (Revenue), the Tax Case Appeal was disposed of. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the two issues raised were not adjudicated by the High Court due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
The High Court, in light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue, noted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than the monetary limit imposed by CBDT Circular No.17/2019. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial question of law remains open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn and return the original order.
The High Court held that the amounts collected by the assessee educational institutions were indeed capitation fees, collected in quid pro quo for the allotment of seats, and were in deviation of the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992. The Court found that these collections were neither voluntary contributions nor applied for charitable purposes. Consequently, the orders of the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal were deemed perverse and were set aside. The substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessees. The Assessing Authority was directed to proceed with the assessment orders, cancel the registration certificates issued to the Assessees/trusts under Section 12A of the Act, and reopen previous assessments if permissible by law, based on tangible material relating to the collection of capitation fee. The Court also made observations and directions regarding the establishment of a web-portal to report instances of capitation fee collection.
The High Court, in light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue, noted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than the monetary limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No.17/2019. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial question of law remains open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded. The connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition was also closed.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was to be dismissed as withdrawn. This decision was based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the Revenue, referencing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular mandates that appeals should not be filed or pursued if the tax effect is below Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. As the tax effect in this particular appeal was stated to be less than the monetary limit, the court accepted the Revenue's submission and dismissed the appeal. The court clarified that the substantial question of law remains open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded. The connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P.) was also closed.
The High Court, in light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue regarding the tax effect being less than the monetary limit imposed by CBDT Circular No.17/2019, dismissed the present appeal as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial question of law remains open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded. The connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P.) was also closed. The operative direction was to return the original order to the appellant after retaining a copy.
The High Court, in light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue regarding CBDT Circular No.17/2019, which mandates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued if the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/-, and noting that the tax effect in this appeal was less than the threshold limit, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court clarified that the substantial question of law remains open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded. The connected C.M.P. was also closed. The operative direction was to return the original order to the appellant after retaining a copy.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, in light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue concerning CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, held that the appeal, wherein the tax effect was stated to be less than the monetary limit imposed by the circular, is dismissed as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial question of law remains open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded. The connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P.) was also closed. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. Instead, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Revenue. This decision was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the monetary limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which directs that appeals shall not be filed or pursued if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded.
The High Court held that the decisions cited by both parties pre-dated the amendment to Section 41 of the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act, 1992. Therefore, those pre-amendment decisions could not be strictly applied. The Court emphasized that Section 41 should be considered a complete code for charging profits to tax, and Section 41(1) cannot be read in isolation from Section 41(4). The assessment contemplated under both sub-sections is the same. Consequently, the absence of a corresponding amendment in sub-clause (4) does not mean Section 41(1) will not apply. The Court reasoned that the recovery of a debt is a right transferred along with other rights during amalgamation. If the transferor could claim a deduction for irrecoverable debt, the transferee should also have that right recognized. The Court found the Tribunal's order, which confirmed the lower authority's decision, to be well-reasoned and requiring no interference. The substantial questions of law were answered against the appellant.
The High Court held that the present Tax Case Appeal filed by the appellant was premature and therefore not maintainable. The reasoning was based on the fact that the appellant had filed a miscellaneous application before the ITAT to rectify an alleged error apparent on the face of the record in the ITAT's order. The Court decided not to express any opinion on the merits of the case. The appeal was dismissed with liberty granted to the appellant to approach the High Court again after the miscellaneous petition filed before the ITAT is disposed of, if the appellant is so advised. No costs were awarded.
The High Court held that there was no merit in the appeal filed by the revenue. Upon perusing the agreement produced by the revenue, specifically clauses 5.5 and 7.5, the Court found that upon termination of the agreement, all rights, benefits, grants, and licenses would lapse. The company was obligated to return all materials and refrain from using intellectual property, including trademarks. The Court concluded that no asset was created, nor was an enduring right established in favor of the respondent under the agreement. Therefore, the royalty payments were correctly treated as revenue expenditure. The appeal was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh V. ABC Papers Limited, the Court reiterated that appeals against every decision of the ITAT shall lie before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. The power of transfer under Section 127 of the Act relates only to the jurisdiction of Income Tax Authorities and has no bearing on the jurisdiction of the ITAT or the High Court. Even if a case is transferred under Section 127, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer passed the order continues to exercise appellate jurisdiction. The Court found that the ITAT's order was passed by the Tribunal at Kolkata, but the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order was located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of forum conveniens, and the appellant is at liberty to work out its remedy before the High Court at Calcutta. The issue of limitation was left to be decided by the Calcutta High Court.
The High Court noted the submission by the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) regarding 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 Revenue submitted that the tax effect in the present appeals was less than this threshold limit. In light of this submission, the High Court dismissed the present appeals as withdrawn, stating that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the threshold limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular directs that appeals shall not be filed or pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed this amount. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were not decided on merits. The court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Circular 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/-. The Court noted that the substantial question of law, which was whether rent received from employees for dwelling units should be treated as business income or income from other sources, was kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the monetary limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded. The judgment does not provide any findings or reasoning on the substantial questions of law themselves, as the appeal was disposed of on the ground of the tax effect and the circular.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. Instead, the Court took note of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates that appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000 should not be filed or pursued by the Department. As the Revenue submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was below this monetary limit, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. The learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue brought to the court's notice Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 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/-. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in these appeals was less than this threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the present appeals as withdrawn, stating that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. It noted that during the pendency of the appeal, the assessee had availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and had received a full and final settlement order for tax arrears. Both the Revenue and the assessee conceded this subsequent development. Consequently, the Court was of the opinion that nothing survived for adjudication in the appeal. The appeal was disposed of based on this subsequent settlement, without any decision on the merits of the disallowances under Section 40A(3) or the allowability of bad debts. No specific issue was left undecided; rather, the entire appeal became infructuous.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. Instead, the Court took note of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular mandates 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/-. As the Revenue submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this stipulated threshold limit, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. Therefore, no decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law regarding the applicability of Section 195 and the accrual of income under Section 9(1)(i) read with Section 5(2)(b). No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.
The High Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding 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/-. The Revenue confirmed that the tax effect in the present appeal was below this monetary limit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, stating that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the eligibility of depreciation were not discussed or adjudicated by the High Court.
The High Court noted that the Revenue's counsel brought to its attention CBDT Circular No.17/2019, dated 08.08.2019. 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 counsel submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this threshold limit. In light of this submission, the Court found that the appeal, where the tax effect was below the monetary limit, was to be dismissed as withdrawn. The substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on their merits. Instead, the Revenue brought to the court's attention CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates that appeals should not be filed or pursued if the tax effect is below Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this prescribed limit. Consequently, the High Court, in light of the Revenue's submission regarding the low tax effect and the applicable circular, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were left open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded.
The High Court noted that during the pendency of the appeal, the assessee had availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Declarations were filed and accepted, and a Form 5 order for full and final settlement of tax arrears was issued on 07.12.2021. Both the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant (Revenue) and the learned counsel for the respondent (assessee) fairly conceded to this subsequent development. Consequently, the High Court was of the opinion that nothing further survived for adjudication in the appeal. The appeal was disposed of based on the submissions made by both parties. No costs were awarded. The specific substantial questions of law admitted earlier were not decided on merits due to the settlement.
The High Court, in light of the submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, noted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than the monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court explicitly stated that the substantial question of law admitted for determination was kept open for consideration in an appropriate future case. No costs were awarded. The specific issue regarding the exclusion of comparables by the ITAT was not decided on merits.
The High Court noted that the Revenue's counsel brought to its notice Circular No. 17/2019 dated August 8, 2019, issued by the 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/-. The counsel submitted that the tax effect in these appeals was less than this threshold limit. Consequently, the Court dismissed the present appeals as withdrawn, stating that the substantial questions of law remain open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on their merits. Instead, the Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding 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/-. The Revenue confirmed that the tax effect in these appeals was less than the stipulated threshold limit. Consequently, the Court dismissed the present appeals as withdrawn, explicitly stating that the substantial questions of law are kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded. The judgment does not record any finding on the merits of the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) or the classification of software payments as royalty under Section 9(1)(vi).
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. Therefore, there was no decision on the merits of the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal. No costs were awarded.
The High Court noted that during the pendency of the appeal, the assessee had successfully availed the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. A Form 5 order for full and final settlement of tax arrears was issued to the assessee on 25.11.2021. Both the Revenue and the assessee's counsel conceded to this subsequent development. Consequently, the Court was of the opinion that nothing further survived for adjudication in the appeal. The appeal was disposed of based on this subsequent event, without delving into the merits of the substantial questions of law initially framed. No costs were awarded.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. Instead, the Revenue's counsel brought to the court's notice Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 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). The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in the present appeals was less than this threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, based on the Revenue's submission regarding the tax effect and the CBDT circular. The court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on their merits. Instead, the Revenue, through its counsel, brought to the court's attention CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- should not be filed or pursued by the Department before the High Court. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in the present appeals was below this threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court, in light of the Revenue's submission and the applicable circular, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. The Revenue brought to the court's notice Circular No.17/2019 issued by the CBDT, which 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/-. The learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the tax effect in these appeals was less than this threshold limit. Consequently, the Court, in light of this submission, dismissed the present appeals as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law remain open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. The Revenue brought to the court's notice Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the CBDT, which stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued before the High Court if the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/-. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in this particular appeal was less than this threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court, in light of this submission, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.
The High Court noted that during the pendency of the Tax Case Appeal, the assessee had availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The assessee filed the necessary declarations, which were accepted, and an order for full and final settlement of tax arrears was issued by the Income Tax Department on 16.04.2021. In view of this subsequent development, the Court was of the opinion that nothing further survived for adjudication in the appeal. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was disposed of based on the submission made by the Revenue's counsel. The Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission.
The High Court, in light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates 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/-, decided to dismiss the present appeals. The court noted that the tax effect in these appeals was less than the stipulated monetary limit. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with the substantial questions of law being kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded. The specific findings on the substantial questions of law by the Tribunal were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.
The High Court, in its common judgment, noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. 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/-. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the tax effect in the present appeals was less than this threshold limit. Consequently, the Court dismissed the present appeals as withdrawn, stating that they were being withdrawn due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit. The Court explicitly mentioned that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.
The High Court noted that the Revenue had brought to its attention 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/-. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was below this stipulated threshold. In light of this submission by the Revenue, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which 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/-. The Revenue confirmed that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this monetary limit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the substantial question of law left open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the exemption under Sections 11 and 12, and the reasoning behind it, were not adjudicated by the High Court due to the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue brought to the court's notice CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued before the High Court if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this stipulated threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court, in light of this submission and the circular, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded.