Loading High Court cases…
331 orders · Page 5 of 7
The High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The Court noted that the tax effect in these appeals was less than the threshold limit of Rs.1,00,00,000/- stipulated in CBDT Circular No.17/2019. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed based on this circular, with the substantial questions of law being kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The judgment did not delve into the merits of the substantial questions of law raised, as the appeals were disposed of on a procedural ground related to the tax effect.
The High Court, in light of the submissions 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tax effect being less than the monetary limit imposed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dismissed the present appeals as withdrawn.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 judgment does not provide any finding or reasoning on the merits of the substantial questions of law themselves, as the appeals were disposed of on a procedural ground related to the tax effect.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. Instead, the Court considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular mandates that the Department shall not file or pursue appeals before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. As the tax effect in the present appeal was stated to be less than this monetary limit, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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 Revenue's submission 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 question of law was kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded. The specific finding on whether the expenditure was capital or revenue in nature was not decided on merits.
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 should not be filed or pursued 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 or reasoning of the ITAT on the issues of carry forward of losses under Section 115JB, exemption under Section 47(v), and carry forward of business losses beyond 8 years for book profits were not addressed by the High Court.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. 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, in light of the submission regarding the tax effect and the circular, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The substantial question of law was 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 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 these appeals was less than this threshold 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 High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The 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. In light of this submission, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The court clarified that the substantial questions of law remain open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. Instead, the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue brought to the court's notice 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. Consequently, the High Court, in light of the Revenue's submission regarding the tax effect 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 that the assessee had availed the benefit conferred under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, a beneficial legislation enacted for the resolution of disputed tax. The declarations submitted by the assessee under this Act were accepted, and Form 3 was issued by the Income Tax Department. In light of this development, the Court deemed it unnecessary to decide the substantial question of law raised in the Tax Case Appeal. The appeal was disposed of, directing the department to process the application in accordance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and communicate the decision to the assessee at the earliest. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to process the Vivad Se Vishwas application and communicate the decision.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on their merits. Instead, the Court noted the submission by the Revenue regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit for pursuing appeals before the High Court. As the tax effect in the present appeal was stated to be less than the threshold limit stipulated in 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 dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The dismissal was based on the submission by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The court noted that the tax effect in these appeals was less than the threshold limit. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with the substantial questions of law kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were imposed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The judgment does not record any finding or reasoning on the merits of the substantial questions of law raised.
The High Court noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and had obtained a Form 5 order for full and final settlement of tax arrears on 22.12.2020. In view of this subsequent development, the Court was of the opinion that nothing further 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. The Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. The principle that can be cited is that an appeal may be disposed of as infructuous if the underlying tax dispute has been settled under a scheme like the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. No costs were awarded.
The High Court, in its judgment delivered by R. Mahadevan, J., noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular mandates that the Department shall not file or pursue appeals before the High Court where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The counsel for the Revenue confirmed that the tax effect in the present appeal was below this stipulated threshold. 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 held that the substantial question of law raised was covered in favour of the assessee by a coordinate bench's judgment dated 15.02.2021 in the assessee's own case for assessment years 2010-2011, 2011-12, and 2015-16. The court noted that the assessee society has been treated as an association since its inception in 1987, registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The court found the Assessing Officer's observation that the assessee was an institution and not an association to be unsustainable, considering the assessee's objectives and activities. The Tribunal had rightly considered the assessee's objectives and activities, which were consistently focused on research in agricultural-related areas, and had correctly reversed the Assessing Officer's finding. Therefore, the High Court answered the substantial question of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, dismissing the appeals. The operative direction was the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This decision was based on a submission by the Revenue's counsel, citing Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). This circular stipulates that the Department shall not file or pursue appeals before the High Court 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 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 High Court noted that during the pendency of the appeal, the assessee had availed the benefits of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The assessee had filed the requisite forms, which were accepted, and Form 3 was issued by the Income Tax Department. In light of these developments, the High Court deemed it unnecessary to decide the substantial questions of law that had arisen in the tax case appeal. The appeal was disposed of based on the submissions made by the Revenue's counsel, recording that the assessee had already benefited from the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The court directed the department to process the application in accordance with the Act and communicate the decision to the assessee. 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 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. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, stating that the substantial questions of law are 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 the threshold limit. In light of this submission, 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 High Court, in its judgment delivered by R. Mahadevan, J., noted the submission made by the learned 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 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 limit. Consequently, in light of the Revenue's submission and the circular, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The substantial question of law was expressly left open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded.
The High Court noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and a full and final settlement order for tax arrears had been issued on 16.03.2021. The Revenue's counsel fairly conceded to this development. In view of this subsequent development, the Court was of the opinion that nothing further survived for adjudication in the appeal. Accordingly, the Tax Case Appeal was disposed of based on the submissions made by both sides. The Court did not decide the substantial question of law on its merits.
The High Court noted that during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent assessee had availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and had filed declarations which were accepted, leading to the issuance of a Form-5/order for full and final settlement of tax arrears on 25.01.2022. This subsequent development was fairly conceded by the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue. In view of this settlement, the Court was of the opinion that nothing survived for adjudication in the appeal. Therefore, the Tax Case Appeal was disposed of based on the submissions made by both parties, without deciding the substantial questions of law on merits. No costs were awarded.
The High Court noted that during the pendency of the Tax Case Appeals, the respondent/assessee had availed the benefit conferred under 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 18.08.2021 and 19.08.2021. The learned counsel for the assessee filed Form-5 to that effect. This submission was fairly conceded by the learned Standing Counsels appearing for the appellant/Revenue. In view of this subsequent development, the High Court was of the opinion that nothing survived for adjudication in these appeals. Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the appeals were disposed of. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the substantial questions of law were not adjudicated upon by the High Court due to the settlement.
The High Court noted that the assessee had availed the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and had obtained a full and final settlement of tax arrears on 07.10.2021. This subsequent development was fairly conceded by the Revenue's counsel. In view of this subsequent development, the Court was of the opinion that nothing survived for adjudication in the appeal. Accordingly, recording the submissions of both sides, the Tax Case Appeal was disposed of. No costs were awarded. The issue regarding the disallowance of the revenue loss claim and the ITAT's order remitting it back to the AO was not decided on merits. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as settled.
The High Court noted that during the pendency of the appeals, the assessee had availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and had filed necessary declarations, which were accepted. A Form-5/order for full and final settlement of tax arrears was issued to the assessee on 24.11.2021. This subsequent development was fairly conceded by the learned Standing Counsels appearing for the appellant/Revenue. In view of this subsequent development, the High Court was of the opinion that nothing survived for adjudication in these appeals. The appeals were disposed of based on the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. No costs were awarded. The specific questions of law were not adjudicated on merits.
The High Court disposed of the appeal without adjudicating on the merits of the substantial questions of law. This was due to a subsequent development where the assessee availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The assessee filed necessary declarations, which were accepted by the Income Tax Department, and an order for full and final settlement of tax arrears was issued on 19.08.2021. Both the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Standing Counsels for the Revenue fairly conceded to this development. Consequently, the 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, and no costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the three questions of law were not reviewed or upheld by the High Court.
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 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 30.10.2021. This subsequent development was fairly conceded by the learned standing counsel for the Revenue. In view of this settlement, the High 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 settlement, and no costs were imposed. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed. The specific findings on the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were not adjudicated on merits due to the settlement.
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 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 stipulated threshold limit. In light of this submission by the Revenue, the High Court dismissed the present appeals as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial question of law is kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded.
The High Court noted that during the pendency of the Tax Case Appeals, the assessee had availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The assessee had filed the requisite declarations (Forms 1 and 2), which were accepted by the Income Tax Department, and Form 3 was issued to the assessee on 21.04.2021. The learned standing counsel for the Revenue fairly conceded to this development. In light of these developments, the Court found it unnecessary to decide the substantial questions of law that arose in the appeals. The Court recorded the submissions made by both sides and disposed of the appeals. The department was directed to process the application in accordance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and communicate the decision to the assessee at the earliest. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, in light of the submission by the appellant/Revenue regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court noted that the tax effect in this appeal was less than the monetary limit stipulated in the circular. 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 depreciation rate for crawler cranes and the non-following of the Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. case were not adjudicated upon by the High Court due to the dismissal as withdrawn.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, considering the submission by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, noted that appeals should 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. Consequently, the 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 merits of the textbook sales being part of educational activity or commercial activity, and the applicability of Section 2(15), were not adjudicated by the High Court due to the withdrawal of the appeal.
The High Court, in its judgment delivered by R. Mahadevan, J., noted the submission made by the learned 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 if the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/-. The Revenue confirmed that the tax effect in this appeal was less than the stipulated threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the present appeal as withdrawn, explicitly stating that the substantial questions of law are kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded.
The High Court, in its common judgment delivered by R. Mahadevan, J., noted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue. The Revenue brought to the court's attention 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 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 appeals was less than this stipulated threshold limit. In light of these submissions by the Revenue, the High Court found that the present appeals, where the tax effect was stated to be less than the monetary limit, were to be dismissed as withdrawn. The substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded.
The High Court noted the submission by the learned 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/-. The Revenue stated that the tax effect in the present appeals was below this stipulated threshold. In light of this submission and the circular, the Court dismissed the present appeals as withdrawn, while explicitly stating that the substantial question of law remains open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.
The High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. This decision was based on a submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding Circular No. 17/2019 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 Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, explicitly stating that the substantial questions of law remain open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded. The judgment does not provide findings on the merits of the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue.
The High Court noted the submission by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court. The Revenue stated that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, in light of the tax effect being below the stipulated monetary limit. The substantial question of law was 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 noted the submission by the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) regarding CBDT Circular No.17/2019. This circular stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/-. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in the present appeals was less than this threshold limit. Consequently, in light of the aforesaid submission by the Revenue, the High Court 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.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on their 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 less than the 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 kept 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. Instead, the Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for pursuing appeals. As the tax effect in the present appeal was stated to be below this threshold, 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 appeals as withdrawn. This decision was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding 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 Revenue submitted that the tax effect in these appeals was less than this threshold limit. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded. The court did not decide on the merits of the substantial questions of law raised.
The High Court noted that the Revenue brought to its 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 these appeals was less than this threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the present appeals as withdrawn, in light of the submission regarding the tax effect being below the monetary limit. 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 petitions were closed.
The High Court held that the assessee made cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/- on different dates to two agencies, violating Section 40A(3). The assessee failed to explain any business expediency for these cash payments or provide documentary evidence. The AO, CIT(A), and ITAT correctly applied Section 40A(3) and disallowed the claim of Rs. 76,50,000/-. The court noted that the assessee's books of accounts did not disclose payments to agents or in bits and pieces, and the consolidated payments made daily to suppliers exceeded Rs. 20,000/-. The court found no merit in the assessee's submissions and confirmed the orders of the appellate authorities. Consequently, no substantial questions of law arose for decision, and the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court noted that during the pendency of the Tax Case Appeals, 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 Form 5 orders for full and final settlement of tax arrears were issued by the Income Tax Department on 28.10.2021 and 09.11.2011. The learned counsel for the Revenue fairly conceded this subsequent development. In view of this subsequent development, the High Court was of the opinion that nothing survived for adjudication in these appeals. Accordingly, recording the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the Tax Case Appeals were disposed of. The court did not decide the substantial questions of law on their merits.
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 limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which directs that appeals should not be filed or pursued by the Department in such cases. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn and close the connected miscellaneous petition. No costs were awarded. The judgment does not provide findings on the substantial questions of law themselves.
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 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 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 adjudicate on the merits of the substantial questions of law. It recorded the submission by the assessee's counsel that the appellant had availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and had received Form 5/order for full and final settlement of tax arrears on 28.10.2021 and 09.11.2021. This submission was fairly conceded by the learned standing counsel for the revenue. Consequently, the Court was of the opinion that nothing survived for adjudication in these appeals. The appeals were disposed of based on this subsequent development, and no costs were imposed. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
The High Court noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and had obtained a Form 5 order for full and final settlement of tax arrears on 09.11.2021. This fact was conceded by the Revenue. Consequently, the Court was of the opinion that nothing further survived for adjudication in these appeals. The appeals were disposed of based on this subsequent development and the submissions made by both parties. No specific findings were given on the substantial questions of law framed earlier, as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeals.
The High Court, in light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue regarding CBDT Circular No.17/2019, which sets a monetary limit for pursuing appeals, decided to dismiss the present appeals. The court noted that the tax effect in these appeals was stated to be less than the monetary limit imposed by the circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
The High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect in these appeals was less than the monetary limit of Rs.1,00,00,000/- stipulated in CBDT Circular No.17/2019. Consequently, the Court did not adjudicate on the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue. 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. Instead, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 1,00,00,000 should not be filed or pursued. Since the tax effect in the present appeal was stated to be less than this monetary limit, the 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.