Loading High Court cases…
331 orders · Page 2 of 7
The High Court disposed of the appeals without adjudicating on the merits of the substantial questions of law. This was due to a subsequent development: the Assessee had availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and obtained a final settlement order on 07.12.2020. Both the Revenue and the Assessee conceded that in light of this settlement, nothing further survived for adjudication in the appeals. Therefore, the Court recorded the submissions of both sides and disposed of the Tax Case Appeals. No specific findings were made on any of the issues raised, and no operative directions were issued regarding the original disputes. The principle derived is that if parties to an appeal reach a settlement under a scheme like Vivad se Vishwas, the pending appeals become infructuous and are disposed of accordingly.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. Instead, the Court took note of the Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, 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/-. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this stipulated threshold limit. In light of this submission, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, stating that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case.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 High Court of Judicature at Madras, in light of the submission by the Revenue regarding 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with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- should not be filed or pursued, dismissed the present appeal as withdrawn. The court noted that the tax effect in this appeal was stated to be less than the monetary limit imposed by the circular. 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. The learned counsel for the Revenue brought to the court's notice CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, 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/-. It was submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was below this threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court, in light of the submission regarding the tax effect being less than the monetary limit, 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. Instead, the 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 threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court, in light of the Revenue's submission and the applicable 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.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. Instead, the Revenue's counsel brought to the court's notice 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. The counsel submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was below this monetary 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.
The High Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary threshold of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court. The Revenue confirmed that the tax effect in the present appeal was below this 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 judgment does not provide findings or reasoning on the merits of the three substantial questions of law raised.
The High Court noted that the Revenue's counsel brought to its attention CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, 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 counsel submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court, in light of the submission regarding the tax effect being below the monetary limit, 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 did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. Instead, the Revenue brought to the court's notice 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 Revenue submitted that the tax effect in these appeals was below this monetary limit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the present appeals as withdrawn, in light of the aforementioned submission and circular. The court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law remain open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded.
The High Court noted that the Revenue's counsel brought to its attention 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 confirmed that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this stipulated threshold. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, in light of the Revenue's submission regarding the tax effect and the CBDT circular. The substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded.
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 in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Revenue further submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this stipulated threshold limit. 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 specific findings of the ITAT on the entitlement to deduction under Section 54F for multiple flats and the possession period were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.
The High Court noted that the Revenue brought to its notice Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 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/- (Rupees One Crore). The learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the tax effect in these appeals was less than the 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 dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The court noted that the Revenue's counsel 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 appeals was less than this threshold limit. In light of this submission by the Revenue, the court found that the appeals, where the tax effect was stated to be less than the monetary limit, were to be dismissed as withdrawn. The court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded.
The High Court, in light of the submission by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue regarding CBDT Circular No.17/2019, which mandates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/-, and the assertion that the tax effect in this appeal was less than the stipulated threshold, 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 specific findings of the Tribunal on the two substantial questions of law were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. Instead, the Court noted that during the pendency of the 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 a Form 5 order for full and final settlement of tax arrears was issued by the Income Tax Department on 20.04.2021. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue submitted this fact, and it was fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. In view of this subsequent development, the Court was of the opinion that nothing further survived for adjudication in the appeal. Therefore, the Tax Case Appeal was disposed of based on the submissions made by both parties, without any decision on the merits of the substantial questions of law.
The High Court noted that during the pendency of the appeal, the assessee had availed the benefits under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The assessee had filed the necessary declarations, which were accepted, and a Form 5 order for full and final settlement of tax arrears was issued by the Income Tax Department on May 7, 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. In view of this, 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, without delving into the merits of the substantial question of law.
The High Court noted that the revenue's counsel brought to its attention 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 revenue submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this monetary limit. In light of this submission, 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 on the substantial questions of law were not adjudicated on merits due to the withdrawal of the appeal.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. The Revenue brought to the court's notice CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dated 08.08.2019, 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 submitted that the tax effect in this appeal was below this threshold 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 High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This decision was based on the submission by the revenue that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the monetary threshold of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the revenue stated it would not pursue the appeal. The Court explicitly noted that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law raised.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Revenue's counsel brought to the court's notice CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated August 8, 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 counsel submitted that the tax effect in this appeal was below this threshold limit. In light of this submission, the court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, keeping the substantial questions of law 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 Revenue brought to the court's notice CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, 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 submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court, in light of the submission regarding the tax effect being below the monetary limit, 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/- (Rupees One Crore). The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in these appeals was less than this threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court, in light of the submissions regarding the monetary limit, 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's counsel brought to the court's notice CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dated 08.08.2019, 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 counsel submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this threshold limit. In light of this submission and the circular, 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 did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. Instead, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Revenue, based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular mandates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in these appeals was below this monetary limit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, while explicitly stating 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 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.
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 CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, 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/-. It was submitted that the tax effect in this appeal was below this threshold limit. Consequently, in light of the submission regarding the tax effect being less than the monetary limit, the present appeal was dismissed 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, in light of the submission by the Revenue regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, noted that the tax effect in the 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 questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law. No costs were awarded.
The High Court, in light of the submission by the Revenue regarding CBDT Circular No.17/2019, which mandates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued before the High Court where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/-, dismissed the present appeal. The court noted that the tax effect in this appeal was less than the stipulated threshold limit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the substantial questions of law left open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded. The specific findings on the substantial questions of law were not adjudicated on merits due to the dismissal based on the circular.
The High Court noted that the Revenue's counsel brought to its attention 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 counsel submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was below this threshold limit. In light of this submission, the High Court dismissed the present 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 noted 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's counsel further submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this threshold limit. In light of this submission, 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 on the agricultural nature of the land or the inconsistency of the Tribunal's orders were not adjudicated on merits.
The High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. This decision was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular mandates that appeals should not be filed or pursued before the High Court if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Revenue stated that the tax effect in these particular appeals was below this monetary threshold. Consequently, the court found no necessity to adjudicate on the substantial questions of law that had been admitted. The dismissal was made without prejudice to the determination of these questions in other appropriate cases. No costs were awarded.
The High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. This decision was based on the submission by the Revenue that the tax effect in these appeals was less than the monetary limit stipulated in 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/-. Consequently, the court did not delve into the merits of the substantial question of law. The court explicitly stated that the substantial question of law remains open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded.
The High Court, in light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dismissed the present appeal as withdrawn. The Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the monetary limit imposed by the circular. The substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded. The judgment does not provide findings on the merits of the substantial questions of law, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds related to the tax effect.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. Instead, the 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 prescribed threshold. Consequently, the High Court, in light of the Revenue's submission regarding the tax effect being below the monetary limit, 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 did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. Instead, the Revenue's Standing Counsel brought to the court's notice Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 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 Standing Counsel submitted that the tax effect in these appeals was below 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 noted that the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue brought to its notice Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, 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/- (Rupees One Crore). The Standing Counsel submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court, in light of the aforementioned submission and the tax effect being below the monetary limit, 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, in light of the submission by the Revenue's counsel 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/-, noted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than the stipulated threshold limit. Consequently, 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 judgment did not decide the substantial questions of law on their merits.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. The learned Standing Counsels for the appellant/Revenue brought to the court's notice Circular No. 17/2019 dated August 8, 2019, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). This circular stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued 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 threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, keeping the substantial questions of law open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded.
The High Court noted that the Revenue, through its learned Senior Standing Counsel, brought to its attention CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. 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/-. The Revenue further submitted that the tax effect in the present appeals was less than this threshold limit. In light of this submission by the Revenue, the High Court dismissed the present appeals as withdrawn. The court stated that the substantial question of law is kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
The High Court noted that the Revenue's counsel brought to its attention 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 threshold limit. In light of this submission, 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 did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. Instead, the learned Standing 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. 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/-. It was submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law 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 Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue brought to the court's notice Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 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/- (Rupees One Crore). It was 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 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 had filed necessary declarations, which were accepted, and an order for full and final settlement of tax arrears was issued by the Income Tax Department on 07.12.2021. The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue fairly conceded this subsequent development. Consequently, the High Court was of the opinion that nothing survived for adjudication in the appeal. The appeal was disposed of based on the submissions made by both parties. No specific finding was given on the substantial questions of law raised, as the appeal was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. The Revenue brought to the court's notice 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 submitted that the tax effect in these appeals was below this threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court, in light of the Revenue's submission and the aforesaid circular, dismissed the present 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, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
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. The assessee filed necessary declarations, which were accepted, and Form-5/order for full and final settlement of tax arrears was issued by the Income Tax Department on 22.04.2021. This submission was fairly conceded by the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue. In view of this subsequent development, the High Court was of the opinion that nothing survived for adjudication in the appeal. The appeal was disposed of based on the submissions made by both sides. No costs were awarded. The specific issues framed by the Revenue were not decided on merits.
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 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/-. It was submitted that the tax effect in this appeal was less than the threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, keeping the substantial questions of law open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, in its judgment delivered by R. Mahadevan, J., noted that the Revenue had brought to its attention CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This 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 Revenue submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this stipulated threshold limit. In light of this submission, 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. Instead, the Court took note of the 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's counsel submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this stipulated threshold. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, stating that the substantial questions of law remain open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the issues of lease rentals, additional evidence, and payments to trustees/relatives were not reviewed or adjudicated by the High Court.
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 further submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this stipulated threshold limit. In light of this submission by the Revenue, the High Court considered the appeal 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 dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Revenue's counsel brought to the court's notice CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, 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 submitted that the tax effect in this appeal was below the threshold limit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the substantial questions of law left open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the classification of V-Sat equipments and the eligibility for 60% depreciation were not adjudicated upon by the High Court due to the withdrawal of the appeal.