Loading High Court cases…
331 orders · Page 6 of 7
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 an order for full and final settlement of tax arrears was issued by the Income Tax Department on 09.04.2021. This subsequent development was fairly conceded by the learned standing counsel for the Revenue. Consequently, the Court was of the opinion that nothing survived for adjudication in the appeal. Recording the submissions of both sides, the Tax Case Appeal was disposed of. The Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits.
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 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 the present appeal was less than 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 Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, stating that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case.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 specific findings of the ITAT or the reasoning behind the deletion of the disallowance by the ITAT are not detailed in this High Court judgment.
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 before the High Court if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Revenue stated that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this stipulated threshold. In light of this submission, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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 judgment did not provide any findings on the merits of the substantial questions of law raised.
The High Court, in light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue regarding CBDT Circular No.17/2019, decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The 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 confirmed that the tax effect in the present appeal was below this monetary 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 did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. Instead, it noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which stipulates that appeals should not be filed or pursued if the tax effect is below 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 kept the substantial questions of law 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, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the monetary limit stipulated in the circular. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. The court did not decide on the merits of the substantial questions of law raised. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court noted the submission by the 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/-. 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. The substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded. The judgment did not provide any findings or reasoning on the merits of the substantial questions of law themselves, 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 Court took note of the 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 stipulated monetary limit. Consequently, 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 judgment does not provide any finding or reasoning on the merits of the issues raised, nor does it mention any specific amount in dispute.
The High Court, in light of the submission by the Revenue regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which stipulates 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 the present appeal was less than this 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 judgment did not decide the merits of the substantial questions of law.
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 stipulated in 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/-. Consequently, the substantial questions of law admitted by the court were not adjudicated 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 specific findings or reasoning on the merits of the substantial questions of law are not recorded as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.
The High Court, following a coordinate bench's decision in T.C.A.No.905 of 2008 dated 04.04.2018, held that the issue of whether the cost of production of a teleserial/feature film should be treated as revenue or capital expenditure is to be decided as per CBDT's Circular No.16/2015. This circular states that the cost of production of an abandoned feature film is to be treated as revenue expenditure and allowed under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The Court found no distinction between a teleserial and a feature film in this context, and therefore, the circular has full application. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. 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 less than this threshold limit. Consequently, in light of this submission and the circular, the present 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 High Court decided the appeals based on a submission made by the Revenue concerning CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue brought to the court's notice that appeals should not be filed or pursued 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, the High Court found that the appeals, where the tax effect was below 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. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed. No costs were awarded.
The High Court, in light of the submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit for filing and pursuing appeals before the High Court, noted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than the stipulated threshold. 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 costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the allowability of balance depreciation were not adjudicated by the High Court due to the withdrawal of the appeal.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises in the present case. It is essentially a finding of fact whether the lower interest paid on borrowings from sister/group companies was for the assessee's business or commercially expedient. The Revenue authorities cannot substitute their judgment on the rate of interest agreed between parties, including group companies, unless the decision is arbitrary or motivated to defeat the revenue. The Tribunal rightly held that when the assessee, an investment company, followed the cash system of accounting, the 'Matching Principles' applied by the AO and CIT(A) were not applicable. The court found no reason to take a different view, especially as identical substantial questions of law were decided in favour of the assessee in its own case for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 by previous judgments of the court. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on their merits. Instead, the Revenue brought to the court's notice 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 learned counsel for 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 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 question of law on merits. Instead, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. This decision was based on a Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). This circular stipulated that the Department shall not file or pursue appeals before the High Court if the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). The learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue submitted that the tax effect in these appeals was less than this threshold limit. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of as withdrawn, with the substantial question of law being 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 learned counsel 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 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, noting that the tax effect was 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.
The High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Tribunal's order. On the issue of receipts being capital gains or business income, the court noted the concurrent findings of all three authorities (AO, FAA, ITAT) that the assessee had not provided sufficient evidence to support her claim of being in the real estate business. Her returns indicated lorry operation, and there was no evidence of infrastructure, stock, or trade related to real estate. The short period of ownership was also considered. Therefore, the court found this to be a concurrent finding of fact that did not warrant interference. Regarding the cost of acquisition, the court affirmed the finding that it was Rs. 1.40 crores, based on the registered sale deed, which carries more weight than a self-serving subsequent agreement. The court also upheld the restriction of the deduction for payment to Anand to Rs. 2 lakhs. It reasoned that such payments were not deductible under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as they were not incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer or for improvement of the capital asset, and the assessee had failed to provide evidence of the services rendered. The court emphasized that it would not interfere with findings of fact unless perverse, which was not the case here.
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. 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 21.04.2021 and 23.04.2021. The learned counsel for the respondent/assessee filed these Form-5 documents. The learned standing counsel for the appellant/Revenue fairly conceded this subsequent development. In view of this subsequent development, the High Court was of the opinion that nothing further survived for adjudication in these appeals. The appeals were disposed of based on the submissions made by both sides. No costs were awarded. The specific issues raised in the substantial questions of law were not adjudicated on merits.
For T.C.A.No.165 of 2022, the High Court, relying on its previous judgment in the assessee's own case for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, answered the substantial questions of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Court found that the previous judgment had addressed the procedural requirements of Section 14A(2), including the Assessing Officer's satisfaction based on the assessee's accounts and the subsequent application of Rule 8D. The Court noted that in the earlier case, the Tribunal had erred by not remanding the matter for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer when it found issues with the computation. Consequently, the ITAT's order in I.T.A.No.854 of 2018 was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in accordance with law. For T.C.A.No.164 of 2022, the Court stated that no further orders were needed and disposed of the appeal accordingly, without deciding on the merits of the fresh claim issue.
The High Court recorded the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant seeking permission to withdraw the tax case appeal. The counsel had also made an endorsement to this effect in the case bundle. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the tax case appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings or reasoning of the Tribunal that were under challenge were not addressed, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural basis.
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, 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 less than this threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, in light of the submissions made by the Revenue regarding the tax effect being below the monetary limit. 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/assessee filed a memo stating that the assessee had availed the benefit under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and had been issued Form 3. Consequently, the assessee submitted that nothing further survived for adjudication and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. In view of these submissions, the Court dismissed the tax appeal as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the issues of reassessment validity, reopening after four years, or the allowability of leave encashment provision. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the ITAT was correct in allowing the assessee's cross-objection. The Court noted that the agreement dated 18.06.2008 between the assessee and M/s. Mayflower Inno Reality Private Limited did not materialize, and no sale deed was registered nor possession transferred. The buyer refused to honor the agreement and demanded the return of advance. The agreement was formally terminated on 24.11.2010. The ITAT found that the assessee was aware that the agreement would not be executed and no income would be earned before the completion of assessment, thus justifying the filing of a revised return under Section 139(5) to reflect the real income. The Court agreed that the income was unreal and no money reached the assessee's hands as per the contract. The substantial questions of law were answered against the Revenue, and the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court noted that the Revenue 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 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 dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. This decision was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel 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. Since the tax effect in these appeals was stated to be below this monetary limit, the court found it appropriate to dismiss them 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 did not delve into the merits of the substantial questions of law concerning the deletion of penalties under Section 271D and the applicability of Section 273B.
The High Court, in its common judgment, did not delve into the merits of the substantial questions of law. Instead, the 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 confirmed that the tax effect in the present appeals was less than this stipulated threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, explicitly stating 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 held that the assessee is entitled to claim 50% of additional depreciation in the assessment year subsequent to the assessment year of acquisition and installation of plant and machinery, provided the machinery was acquired and put to use in the previous year. The Court found that the Revenue's argument was misconceived and that the plain language of the unamended provision allowed for the claim of balance additional depreciation in the subsequent assessment year. The Court relied on its previous judgments in T.C.A.Nos. 551 of 2013 and 157 of 2017, which had also negatived the Revenue's contention. The ratio decidendi is that the manner of calculation of depreciation cannot impede the claim for balance additional depreciation in the year following the previous year of installation and use. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court noted that the ITAT, in its common order dated March 27, 2017, had remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Tribunal acknowledged that there was short deduction of TDS by the assessee. It also noted that while the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative with retrospective effect from April 1, 2005, the assessee had not produced evidence before the lower authorities to substantiate that the recipient/payee had paid tax. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue of Rs. 10,47,442/- (on which TDS was not deducted) to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its claim with payee's income tax details. The High Court found no reason to interfere with this order of remand. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeals were left open and directed the AO to consider the issue of short payment of TDS after affording an opportunity of hearing within eight weeks.
The High Court held that substantial questions of law 1 to 3 are covered in favor of the assessee by this Court's decision in S.P.Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court noted that the ITAT had considered decisions from the Hyderabad Bench and the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which held that the sale of carbon credits results in a capital receipt. The Court further observed that Section 115BBG was introduced only from April 1, 2018, and prior to that, there was confusion regarding the taxability of carbon credits. The assessee's claim under Section 80IA, made due to this uncertainty, should not lead to denial of benefits. Therefore, the receipt from the sale of carbon credits is a capital receipt and not taxable. Regarding substantial question of law no.4 concerning TUF subsidy and compensation, the Court noted the Revenue's submission that it is covered in favor of the assessee by the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in CIT v. Sham Lal Bansal, which relied on Supreme Court judgments. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arises and answered all substantial questions of law in favor of the assessee.
The High Court disposed of the Tax Case Appeal in view of the subsequent development where 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 a Form 5 order for full and final settlement of tax arrears was issued on December 7, 2021. Both the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned standing counsel for the Revenue fairly 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 without any costs. The specific findings on the substantial questions of law framed earlier were not adjudicated upon due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal were to be answered in favour of the assessee. This decision was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the issues had already been decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. HCL Technologies Ltd. [(2018) 404 ITR 719 (SC)]. The Supreme Court, in that judgment, had held that expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover to arrive at the profit from export business, to avoid an illogical and unjust result. The principle was that if deductions on freight, telecommunication, and insurance attributable to the delivery of computer software are allowed only from export turnover but not from total turnover, it would lead to an inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless, and illogical result, contrary to legislative intent. Therefore, such deductions should be allowed from the total turnover in the same proportion. Consequently, the High Court found the appeal to be devoid of merits and dismissed it. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on their merits. Instead, the Court considered the submission made by the 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/-. As the Revenue submitted that the tax effect in this particular appeal was less than the threshold limit specified in the circular, the High Court, in light of this submission, dismissed the appeal. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded.
The Court granted the appellant's request to withdraw the Tax Case Appeals. In view of the submission and the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The judgment does not record any decision on the merits of the original appeals before the Tribunal or the grounds raised therein.
The High Court, in light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue regarding Circular No.17/2019, noted that the tax effect in these appeals was less than the monetary limit imposed by the circular. Consequently, the court dismissed the present appeals as withdrawn. The substantial question of law was kept open for determination in appropriate cases. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed. No costs were awarded.
The High Court, in light of the submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The Court noted that the tax effect in this appeal was less than the monetary limit stipulated in the circular. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were not adjudicated 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 operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The learned counsel for the appellant-assessee informed the court that the assessee had filed Forms 1 and 2 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, which were accepted, and Form 3 was issued by the Income Tax Department. Consequently, the assessee submitted that nothing further survived for adjudication and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Recording these submissions and the memo filed by the assessee, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the substantial questions of law raised by the assessee.
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 sets a monetary threshold of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this stipulated limit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, in light of the Revenue's submission regarding the tax effect and the circular. 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 in the appeal was to be answered in favour of the assessee. The Court noted that both parties jointly submitted that the identical question of law had already been decided against the Revenue in the decisions of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (Bombay High Court) and Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Lakshmi General Finance Ltd. (Madras High Court). These precedents established that machinery used for trial production or kept ready for use qualifies for depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was that the term 'used for the purposes of business' can be interpreted more broadly to include passive use or being kept ready for use, and that depreciation is intended to account for wear and tear. Therefore, the denial of depreciation solely on the basis of non-commencement of commercial production or short duration of use was not sustainable. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court noted the joint submission by the learned counsel for both the appellant (assessee) and the respondent (revenue). They jointly stated that during the pendency of the appeal, the claim of the appellant/assessee was accepted by the assessing officer via an order dated 31.12.2019. This acceptance was in effect of an order passed by the Tribunal on 28.06.2018, which was in the second round of litigation. Given this development, both parties agreed that nothing further survived for adjudication in the present appeal. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the tax case appeal as having become infructuous. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the validity of reopening and the addition under Section 68, and the reasoning behind them, were not discussed by the High Court as the appeal was disposed of on a subsequent event.
The High Court held that there was no substantial question of law arising for consideration. The Court noted that the assessee failed to furnish relevant materials to substantiate its claims, admitting inability to produce supporting evidence for purchases due to the destruction of records in the 2015 flood. However, the auditor's report indicated no adverse comments on the books of accounts or purchases debited to the Profit and Loss account, a fact not disputed by the AO. The CIT(A), considering the decline in the assessee's gross profit rate compared to the previous year, restricted the disallowance on purchases to 2.5% of the total turnover. This finding was affirmed by the ITAT. The Court, referencing the Delhi High Court decision in Alpasso Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, stated that factual findings of the Tribunal are not perverse merely because another conclusion was possible, and interference is justified only when conclusions are patently unreasonable, unsupported by evidence, or based on conjectures. The Court found the appellate authorities' findings to be well-considered and not warranting interference. Therefore, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed.
The High Court noted that the learned 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 (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 appeal is less than this threshold limit. In light of this submission, the Court dismissed the present appeal as withdrawn, stating that the substantial question of law is kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, following its earlier judgment in TCA.Nos.432, 433 and 436 of 2020. The Court acknowledged the technical issues faced by litigants and the department during the initial implementation of e-filing, which led to CBDT issuing Circular No.20/2016. This circular extended the time for filing e-appeals to 15.06.2016. The Court held that the substantive right of appeal should not be denied on technical grounds, especially considering the circumstances in 2016 when e-filing was a new procedure. The Court found no error in the ITAT's discretion in favour of the assessee. The substantial questions of law were left open for consideration. The operative direction was to dismiss the Revenue's appeal.
The High Court noted that during the pendency of the appeals, the assessees had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. They had filed the necessary declarations (Forms 1 and 2), which were accepted by the Income Tax Department, and Form 5 was issued to them. The Court acknowledged that this beneficial legislation was enacted for the resolution of disputed tax matters. In light of these developments, the Court found it unnecessary to adjudicate on the substantial questions of law that formed the basis of the appeals. The Court recorded the submissions made by the Revenue's counsel. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of, with a direction to the department to process the applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act at the earliest and communicate the decision to the assessees. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Revenue's counsel brought to the court's attention Circular No.17/2019 issued by the CBDT, which stipulates 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 counsel 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 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 judgment does not provide findings on the merits of the substantial questions of law raised.
The High Court considered the submission and endorsement made by the learned counsel for the appellant seeking permission to withdraw the Tax Case Appeal. In view of this request, the High Court allowed the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were imposed. The judgment does not record any decision on the merits of the original appeal filed before the ITAT, as the appeal was withdrawn at the High Court stage.
The High Court held that there was no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arising for consideration. The Court noted that the assessee did not prove her nature of business and the source of the credit of Rs. 25,00,000. She had put forth different stands before the authorities below. The AO's findings highlighted the assessee's inconsistent stands regarding her business (Spoken English Coaching Class vs. Real Estate Business) and her failure to provide evidence for the sources of cash deposits, treating it as unexplained investment under Section 69. The appellate authorities, including the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT, confirmed these findings, emphasizing the lack of evidence and inconsistent explanations. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower appellate authorities. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
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 stipulates 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 submitted 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 issues of deemed dividend, beneficial ownership, interpretation of Section 2(22)(e), and liberty to the Revenue were not reviewed or adjudicated by the High Court.
The High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on a submission by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue that, as per CBDT's Circular No. 9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024, the tax effect in the instant case was less than the monetary limit imposed for filing appeals. Consequently, the Court decided to dispose of the appeal without adjudicating the substantial questions of law. The substantial questions of law were kept open for adjudication at an appropriate stage. The Court stated that there would be no order as to costs.