Madras High Court Judgments — 2025

The High Court noted the submission by the Revenue that the case had a low tax effect. In view of Circular No. 05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 and Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, the appellant/Revenue stated that it did not wish to proceed with the matter. The Court acknowledged that the questions of law proposed could be kept open for consideration in an appropriate matter. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. No order as to costs was made.

The High Court held that the grant-in-aid/subsidy received by the appellant was a capital receipt. The Court analyzed the scheme under which the financial assistance was provided, noting that a significant condition was the clearing of liabilities, including those to DCS, other milk unions, and employers. The Court found that the dominant purpose of the financial assistance was the rehabilitation of the loss-making society and the utilization of funds for clearing its loan liabilities due to financial stringency. The Court rejected the revenue's submission that performance-related conditions indicated a revenue nature, stating that such checks were merely to ensure proper utilization of rehabilitation funds. Therefore, the first, second, and third substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the appellant. The fourth substantial question of law was deemed academic as it was not raised before the lower authorities and became irrelevant due to the decision on the first question.

The High Court of Judicature at Madras allowed the appeal in terms of its order dated 26.11.2025 passed in T.C.A.Nos.187, 188 and 189 of 2025. The Court noted that both parties agreed that the present appeal involved identical issues to those decided in the aforementioned appeals. Consequently, the High Court's decision in those related matters would govern this appeal. No specific findings or reasoning were provided in this judgment as it was disposed of based on a prior order. The operative direction was to allow the appeal. There was no order as to costs. The interim application was closed.

The High Court, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the Revenue, decided to dismiss the appeal. The Revenue, acknowledging the low tax effect of the case, stated its intention not to proceed further, citing relevant circulars from the CBDT. The Court accepted this submission and disposed of the appeal accordingly. The Revenue's counsel explicitly mentioned that the question of law may be kept open for consideration in an appropriate future matter, indicating that no decision on the merits of the case was made. The operative direction was that the appeal stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.

The High Court of Judicature at Madras, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the Revenue, decided to dismiss the appeal. The Revenue, acknowledging the low tax effect of the case and citing recent circulars from the CBDT (Circular No. 05/2024 and Circular No. 09/2024), expressed its intention not to pursue the appeal further. The Court accepted this submission and consequently dismissed the appeal. The Court also noted that the question of law, though not decided on merits, would be kept open for consideration in an appropriate matter. No order as to costs was made.

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The Court observed that the assessee's framed questions of law were predicated on the submission that the case was one of re-assessment. However, the undisputed facts were that the assessee had not filed any return of income. The assessment was initiated only after information was received from the DIT (I & CI), Salem, regarding the assessee's contribution to property purchases through a partnership firm. The Court further noted that the questions of law now being raised were not even presented for consideration before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was dismissed.

The High Court allowed both appeals in terms of the order dated 26.11.2025 passed in T.C.A.Nos.187, 188 and 189 of 2025. The reasoning for this decision is that the present appeals involve identical issues to those decided in the aforementioned earlier appeals. Therefore, the High Court applied the same decision to the present cases. No order as to costs was made. The interim applications were consequently closed. The specific findings or ratio decidendi from the earlier order are not elaborated upon in this judgment, but it is implied that the outcome of the earlier appeals dictated the outcome of these appeals. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court recorded the submission of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Department that the Income-Tax Department does not wish to pursue the appeal for assessment year 2002-2003 and seeks withdrawal of the same on account of low tax effect, in accordance with Circular No. 9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Tax Case (Appeal) as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the questions of law are left open to be decided in an appropriate matter. No costs were awarded.

The High Court answered the substantial questions of law. The first question regarding Section 68 additions was answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The second question concerning Section 56(2)(viib) was answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The third and fourth questions were also answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Regarding the fifth substantial question of law in TCA No. 14 of 2020 (lease rent disallowance), the Court held that no question of law arose for consideration. For TCA Nos. 15 and 16 of 2020, the fifth and sixth questions of law (related to Sections 36(1)(iii) and 36(1)(va)) were answered in favour of the revenue, and the issue was remanded to the ITAT for re-examination. The Court found that the ITAT's decision on Section 36(1)(va) regarding delayed payment of employees' contribution was not adequately reasoned, and the issue of lease rent under Section 36(1)(iii) required proper determination considering the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

The High Court held that the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was not perverse and was justified in deleting the addition made under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made a fundamental flaw by relying on statements recorded during a search in another assessee's premises and ignoring the documentary evidence produced by the assessee. The CIT(A) had reversed the AO's finding, partly based on identical cases decided in favour of the assessee in previous years. The ITAT provided a detailed finding. The Court concluded that the findings of the lower authorities were essentially findings of fact, arrived at after considering all material on record and applying the correct principles of law. The Court referred to its own decision in Lalitha Jewellery Mart P. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, emphasizing that suspicion, however strong, is no substitute for proof, and that if the Department doubts the investors' capacity, it should proceed against them directly rather than making additions to the assessee's income based on conjectures. The questions of law were decided in favour of the assessee.

The High Court held that the ITAT's rectification order dated 26.03.2013 was erroneous, perverse, and clearly exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal, in considering the rectification petition, had exercised the power of appellate jurisdiction, which is impermissible. The Court found that the Tribunal, on reappreciation of materials, had recalled its earlier order and determined the income afresh, which was beyond its powers. Therefore, the rectification order dated 26.03.2013 was set aside as unsustainable. Consequently, the order dated 21.09.2011 passed by the ITAT was restored. The Court also held that the ITAT's dismissal of the assessee's rectification petition (M.P.No.175/Mds/2014) was based on a correct understanding of its limited jurisdiction under Section 254(2), but this was in contrast to its erroneous approach in the revenue's rectification petition. The substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee. TCA No.538 of 2021 was allowed, and TCA No.319 of 2016 was dismissed.

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law are decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Court relied on the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited. The Supreme Court held that once a resolution plan is approved by the adjudicating authority under Section 31 of the IBC, all claims not part of the resolution plan stand extinguished and no person can initiate or continue proceedings in respect of such claims. Consequently, all dues, including statutory dues, owed to the government, if not part of the resolution plan, stand extinguished. The High Court noted that the revenue had submitted an application before the NCLT, but the claim was neither accepted nor rejected, and no further proceedings were taken against the NCLT order. Therefore, the Resolution Plan approved by the NCLT has attained finality. In light of the Supreme Court's decision, all claims towards tax liability for the assessment years 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and 2010-2011 stand extinguished against the assessee. The revenue is not at liberty to institute any recovery proceedings against the appellant. The appeals are allowed.

The High Court decided the substantial questions of law as follows: Questions (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) related to TCA Nos. 277, 278, and 280 of 2016 were answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Specifically, the Court held that profits and gains of an undertaking, including incidental income like interest on bank deposits or staff loans, are entitled to exemption under Section 10A/10B as they arise in the ordinary course of export business. The Court relied on decisions from the Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hewlett Packard Global Soft Ltd. and its own earlier decision in the present case, finding that the revenue's reliance on cases like India Comnet International v. ITO was misplaced. Question (v) regarding the non-adjudication of miscellaneous income was also decided in favour of the assessee. For TCA No. 279 of 2016, the question of law regarding liability for interest under Section 234D was answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee, based on the assessee's fair submission regarding the retrospective amendment to Explanation 2 of Section 234D. Consequently, TCA Nos. 277, 278, and 280 of 2016 were allowed, and TCA No. 279 of 2016 was dismissed.

The High Court noted the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, 2024, for the relevant assessment year and had filed a declaration. Based on this statement, the appellant's counsel indicated that they did not wish to press the appeal and intended to pursue the remedy under the scheme. Consequently, the Court placed the statement on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The liberty was granted to the appellant to pursue the aforesaid remedy. No specific findings were made on the merits of the appeal, as it was withdrawn. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to pursue the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme.

The High Court noted the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, 2024 and had filed a declaration. Based on this statement, the appellant's counsel indicated that they did not wish to press the appeal. The Court accepted this submission and placed the statement on record. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to pursue the remedy under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original appeal, and no issue was left undecided as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground. There were no operative directions other than dismissing the appeal as withdrawn with liberty.

The High Court held that the sums paid to SIPCOT for development of common infrastructural facilities were not eligible for depreciation as they did not constitute an asset for which depreciation could be claimed. However, the Court found that these expenses were essential for carrying out the business operations and thus eligible for deduction as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal's refusal to consider the alternative claim for revenue expenditure was deemed incorrect, as it was the duty of the Tribunal to grant relief on other grounds if justified. Regarding the revenue expenditure, the Court held that the entire amount was not deductible in the year of payment. Instead, the assessee would be entitled to a deduction of 5% of the contribution made towards development charges at the end of each year when the amount crystallizes and becomes non-refundable, as per the lease terms. The expenses related to rights shares (questions 6 and 7) were not pressed by the assessee and were dismissed as not pressed. Therefore, the appeals were partly allowed.

The High Court held that the first proposed question of law, concerning the correctness of the Tribunal's view in rejecting the application for condonation of delay, did not survive. The Court found that the Tribunal had considered the cause shown by the Revenue and concluded, as a finding of fact, that no sufficient cause was demonstrated. The appeal was filed on 12.01.2024, and even after excluding the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the delay was 503 days. As no sufficient cause was shown for this delay, the High Court found no merit in the proposed question of law. Consequently, the second proposed question of law was rendered unnecessary. The appeal was dismissed.

The High Court held that the joint venture agreement dated 21.12.2005 was not valid as M/s. Indra Housing, the firm, came into existence only on 29.11.2007. This finding addressed the first question of law. Regarding the second and third questions, the Court referred to various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, including CIT vs. Sanghvi and Doshi Enterprise and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Green Associates. These judgments established that a developer undertaking a housing project at their own risk and cost, even without land ownership, could be eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10). The Court noted that the Tribunal had found the assessee had the responsibility to develop and construct the project, and the land owner was not involved in the risk. The Tribunal's reasoning, supported by the cited precedents, indicated that the assessee was entitled to the relief. However, the Court ultimately allowed the Revenue's appeal based on its findings on the first two questions of law, setting aside the Tribunal's order and restoring the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). The assessee was held not eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10).

The High Court noted the submission of the Revenue's counsel regarding the low tax effect of the case. In light of the relevant circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Circular No.05/2024 and Circular No.09/2024), the Revenue expressed its unwillingness to proceed with the appeal. The Court acknowledged that the question of law could be preserved for future consideration. Based on the Revenue's submission and the cited circulars, the High Court decided to dismiss the appeal. The principle derived is that appeals with low tax effect may be withdrawn or dismissed based on administrative instructions from the CBDT, even if a question of law is involved, provided the Revenue so chooses and the question is left open for future adjudication.

The High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue, noted the submission that the case has a low tax effect. In view of the Circulars No. 05/2024 and 09/2024 issued by the CBDT, the Revenue stated that it did not wish to proceed with the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The court explicitly mentioned that the question of law may be kept open for consideration in an appropriate matter. No specific finding was made on the merits of the case, and the operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issue was left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on the Revenue's submission regarding low tax effect.

The High Court noted the submission by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the case involves a low tax effect. Citing Circular No.05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 and Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Revenue stated its intention not to proceed with the appeal. The Revenue, however, sought to keep the question of law open for future consideration. In light of the Revenue's submission and the applicable circulars, the High Court dismissed the appeal. No order was made as to costs. The specific findings of the ITAT on the merits of the case, or the amount in dispute, were not discussed as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds related to tax effect.

The High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue, noted the submission that the case had a low tax effect. The Revenue's counsel fairly submitted that in view of Circular No. 05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 and Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, the appellant/Revenue did not wish to proceed with the matter. The court acknowledged this position and, while keeping the question of law open for consideration in an appropriate matter, dismissed the appeal. No specific finding on the merits of the ITAT's order was given as the appeal was withdrawn by the Revenue. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.

The High Court observed that the issue regarding the delay in filing the appeal, in light of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, was being raised for the first time before the High Court. The Court noted that the ITAT had only remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Consequently, the High Court left it open for the appellant to raise all available submissions under law before the CIT(A). The Court found no case made out for admission of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.

The High Court, upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue, noted the submission that the case had a low tax effect. In view of Circular No.05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 and Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of India, the appellant/Revenue expressed its unwillingness to proceed with the matter. The Court acknowledged that the question of law could be kept open for consideration in an appropriate matter. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal. No order as to costs was made. The specific findings of the Tribunal or the merits of the dispute were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.

The High Court of Judicature at Madras, upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue, noted the submission that the case has a low tax effect. In light of Circular No.05/2024 and Circular No.09/2024 issued by the CBDT, the Revenue expressed its unwillingness to proceed with the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The court explicitly stated that the question of law may be kept open for consideration in an appropriate matter, indicating that the dismissal was not on merits but due to the Revenue's decision not to press the appeal. No specific finding on the merits of the ITAT's order was made, and no issue was left undecided as the appeal itself was dismissed.

The High Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the case involves a low tax effect. Citing Circular No.05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 and Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, issued by the CBDT, the Revenue stated its intention not to pursue the appeal further, while requesting that the question of law be preserved for future cases. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original appeal before the Tribunal. The principle derived is that appeals with low tax effect may be withdrawn by the Revenue based on its administrative instructions, without prejudice to the legal question for other matters. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

The High Court noted that the assessee had availed the "Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024". Based on this statement made at the bar, the assessee sought leave to withdraw the petition. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn. There was no order as to costs. The interim application was also dismissed as a consequence of the main petition being withdrawn. No specific issue was decided on merits, and no principle was established for citation as a ratio decidendi.

The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue that the case had a low tax effect. In light of Circular No.05/2024 and Circular No.09/2024, which guide the Revenue's decision to pursue appeals based on tax effect, the Revenue expressed its unwillingness to proceed with the matter. The Court accepted this submission. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The Court explicitly stated that the questions of law are kept open for consideration in an appropriate matter. No specific findings were made on the merits of the ITAT's order, as the dismissal was based on the Revenue's decision not to press the appeal due to low tax effect. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

The High Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the case has a low tax effect. Citing Circular No. 05/2024 and Circular No. 09/2024, the Revenue expressed its intention not to proceed with the appeal. The Court acknowledged the Revenue's request to keep the questions of law open for future consideration. Based on the Revenue's submission and the aforementioned circulars, the High Court decided to dismiss the appeal. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case or the questions of law. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds.

The High Court held that the first and second substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal correctly held that the assessee was permitted to maintain two sets of accounts, one for shareholders and another for book profit computation under Section 115JA. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in SLP(C) CC.No.19860 of 2015 and the Gujarat High Court's decision in Arvind Mills Ltd.'s case, emphasizing that the profit and loss account prepared according to Schedule VI of the Companies Act should be the basis for tax computation, not the balance sheet prepared for shareholders. The third substantial question of law was also answered in favour of the assessee. The Court found that the assignment of the deferred sales-tax liability for its Net Present Value did not amount to a cessation of liability under Section 41(1), as the entire liability was discharged. This was supported by Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court judgments. Although the fifth question was answered in favour of the Revenue, the overall decision on the other questions led to the dismissal of the appeals.

The High Court decided to dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. The reasoning for this decision was based on the submission made by the Revenue's counsel that the case had a low tax effect. Citing Circular No. 05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 and Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, issued by the CBDT, the Revenue indicated its unwillingness to pursue the matter further. The Court accepted this submission and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The Court explicitly stated that the questions of law would be kept open for consideration in an appropriate matter. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original dispute between the assessee and the Revenue. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal, with no order as to costs.

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal are squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. The High Court did not decide any specific issue on merits but relied on the Supreme Court's precedent. No issue was expressly left undecided. The operative direction was to allow the appeal.

The High Court noted the submission by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the case had a low tax effect. Citing Circular No.05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 and Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, the Revenue stated its intention not to proceed with the appeal. The Court acknowledged the Revenue's position and agreed to keep the proposed questions of law open for future consideration in a relevant case. Based on the Revenue's submission and its decision not to pursue the appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal. No order was made as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.

The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the case. The Revenue, citing low tax effect and relevant CBDT circulars (Circular No.05/2024 and Circular No.09/2024), expressed its intention not to pursue the appeal. The Revenue requested that the questions of law be kept open. Based on the Revenue's submission, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The principle derived is that appeals can be withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue based on low tax effect and administrative instructions, leading to dismissal without adjudication on the merits. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds.

The High Court noted the submission of the Revenue's counsel that the case had a low tax effect. In light of the aforementioned circulars from the Ministry of Finance, the Revenue expressed its unwillingness to pursue the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The Court stated that the questions of law proposed by the Revenue would remain open for consideration in future appropriate cases. No order as to costs was made, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. The judgment does not record any finding on the merits of the case or the specific issues that might have been raised by the Revenue.

The High Court noted the submission by the appellant's counsel that the appellant had availed the benefits of the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme". Based on this submission, the appellant stated that they did not wish to press the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. No order was made as to costs. The judgment also stated that the questions of law, if any were framed, would remain open for consideration in an appropriate matter. The specific findings of the ITAT or the reasoning behind it are not discussed as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.

The High Court, upon hearing the learned counsel for both the appellant (Revenue) and the respondent (Assessee), noted the submission by the Revenue that the case has a low tax effect. In light of Circular No. 05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 and Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Revenue stated they did not wish to proceed with the appeal. The Court acknowledged this and decided to keep the question of law open for consideration in an appropriate matter. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs. The specific findings of the ITAT or the underlying substantive issues of the appeal were not discussed or decided by the High Court.

The Tribunal decided that the appeal should be dismissed. The reasoning was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the case had a low tax effect. In light of Circular No.05/2024 and Circular No.09/2024, the Revenue did not wish to proceed with the matter. The Court accepted this submission and dismissed the appeal. The questions of law were expressly left open for consideration in an appropriate matter. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No order as to costs was made.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant's counsel submitted that the appellant had availed the benefits of the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme" and consequently did not wish to press the appeal. Based on this submission, the High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. The judgment explicitly states that the questions of law framed shall be open for consideration in an appropriate matter. No specific findings on the merits of the original appeal were made, nor was any amount in dispute mentioned.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's counsel fairly submitted that the case had a low tax effect. In view of Circular No.05/2024 and Circular No.09/2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, the appellant/Revenue did not wish to proceed with the matter. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal also stated that the questions of law proposed may be kept open for consideration in an appropriate matter. No order as to costs was made.

The High Court held that the appeal stands dismissed. The reasoning provided is based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the Revenue. The Revenue acknowledged that the case had a low tax effect. Citing Circular No.05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 and Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Revenue expressed its unwillingness to pursue the appeal further. The Court accepted this submission and dismissed the appeal. The question of law was explicitly stated to be kept open for consideration in an appropriate matter. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case or the original dispute before the Tribunal. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

The High Court held that since the Revenue, through its counsel, submitted that the case has a low tax effect and, in view of Circular No.05/2024 and Circular No.09/2024, it did not wish to proceed with the matter, the appeal stands dismissed. The Court noted the Revenue's submission that the questions of law could be kept open for consideration in an appropriate matter. The operative direction was that the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case, as the dismissal was based on the Revenue's decision not to press the appeal due to low tax effect.

The High Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the case had a low tax effect. Relying on Circular No.05/2024 and Circular No.09/2024 issued by the CBDT, the Revenue indicated its intention not to proceed with the appeal. Consequently, the High Court held that the appeal stands dismissed. The court also stated that there shall be no order as to costs, and the interim application stands closed. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the ITAT's order or the substantive issues that might have been raised in the appeal, as the appeal was dismissed based on the Revenue's submission regarding low tax effect and the relevant circulars.

The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had availed the benefits of the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme" and consequently did not want to press the appeal. Based on this submission, the High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Court stated that there would be no order as to costs. Importantly, the judgment also noted that the questions of law framed in the appeal would remain open for consideration in an appropriate matter. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original dispute, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.

The High Court, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue that the case has a low tax effect and that the appellant does not wish to proceed with the matter in light of Circular No.05/2024 and Circular No.09/2024, dismissed the appeal. The Court noted that the question of law may be kept open for consideration in an appropriate matter. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on the Revenue's request.

The High Court held that the appeal did not present any substantial question of law for consideration. This conclusion was reached because the revenue's counsel conceded that the issues and questions of law raised in the present appeal had already been decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee in a prior judgment of the same High Court, specifically in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation v. Sutherland Global Services Inc. [(2025) 175 taxmann.com 897 (Madras)]. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed at the admission stage. No order was made as to costs. The interim application filed in the appeal was also dismissed as a consequence.

The High Court observed that the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) fairly submitted that the issue and the questions of law proposed in the present appeal have already been answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by a prior judgment of the High Court dated 10.06.2025 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation v. Sutherland Global Services Inc. [(2025) 175 taxmann.com 897 (Madras)]. Based on this concession by the Revenue, the High Court found that the appeal did not present any substantial question of law for consideration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed at the admission stage. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the case had a low tax effect. Citing Circular No. 05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 and Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Revenue stated its intention not to proceed with the appeal. The Court accepted this submission. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The Court also noted that the questions of law were to be kept open for consideration in an appropriate matter. No order as to costs was made.

The High Court found that the ITAT had examined the contents of the notice under Section 148. The notice required information that was already available to the Assessing Officer at the time of the original assessment. Therefore, the basis for reopening the assessment was a change of opinion, not new information. Consequently, no substantial question of law was involved. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The court did not decide on the merits of the capital gains claim or the specific transactions, focusing solely on the validity of the reopening proceedings. No costs were awarded.

The High Court disposed of the appeals filed by the Revenue. The decision was based on the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee, confirming that the assessee had already availed the benefits under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' concerning the tax liability for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10. Furthermore, the assessee's appeals had already been withdrawn. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were also disposed of. The Court, however, explicitly stated that the questions of law were kept open for consideration in an appropriate future case. No order as to costs was made, and the interim applications were closed.