Loading High Court cases…
150 orders · Page 1 of 3
The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The court noted that the application was moved by the appellant for withdrawal of the instant appeal and was supported by an affidavit. The prayer for withdrawal was not opposed by the learned counsel representing the respondents. Consequently, the court allowed the application and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the original appeal.
The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case. The court noted that the application for withdrawal was not opposed by the respondents.
The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Tribunal's order dated 21.05.2014, which was under challenge, had been recalled. Furthermore, the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal had itself been withdrawn, inter alia, on account of monetary limits. In light of these developments, the High Court accepted the assessee's oral request and dismissed the main appeal as withdrawn, subject to all just exceptions. No decision was made on the merits of the questions of law originally framed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court directed the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5 (1), Chandigarh (respondent No.4) to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated October 16, 2017, and the legal notice dated October 2, 2020, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court did not delve into the merits of whether the Section 226(3) order *should* be revoked, but rather mandated the authority to address the pending representations. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The principle derived is that administrative authorities must act upon representations and legal notices within a reasonable timeframe, especially when a matter has reached finality at a higher judicial level.
The High Court accepted the applications filed by the Assessee and dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as withdrawn. The Court noted that the monetary limits involved in the three appeals (Rs. 5 Lacs, Rs. 8 Lacs, and Rs. 91.40 Lacs) were significantly below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 1 crore for filing appeals before the High Court, as per Circular No. 17/2019. The counsel for the Revenue fairly conceded to this position. The Court also took on record a letter from the Government of India, Income Tax Department, confirming the applicability of the revised monetary limits to all pending appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the oral request of the counsel for the parties.
The High Court held that the impugned order dated September 23, 2019, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal, under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was unreasoned. The Court noted that the revenue's counsel could not dispute this fact. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Ajanta Industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Court found the order to be contrary to the requirement of providing reasons. Consequently, the order was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Principal Commissioner, Income Tax, Karnal, to pass a fresh reasoned order after considering all submissions made by the assessee in their replies dated September 16 and 23, 2019. The Principal Commissioner was directed to pass this fresh order not later than October 30, 2020, and communicate it to the petitioner not later than November 6, 2020. The petitioner was granted liberty to seek appropriate remedies if the fresh order was adverse.
The High Court held that the appellant possessed a statutory remedy to file an application for the restoration of the appeal that was dismissed for non-prosecution. The Court noted that Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, does not prescribe a period of limitation for approaching the Tribunal for restoration. Consequently, the High Court found the present appeal to be misconceived. The appeal was dismissed as such, but the appellant was granted liberty to file an application for restoration of the appeal before the ITAT, if so advised. The High Court did not decide the merits of the original appeal before the ITAT.
The High Court decided the appeal by first addressing Question No. 2, concerning the merits of allowing exemption for duty drawback under Section 80-I. The Court noted that the assessee's counsel could not dispute that this question was covered against the assessee by a previous decision of the High Court in the assessee's own case (ITA No.151 of 1999), which held that deduction under Section 80-I was not admissible on export incentives like cash compensatory assistance. Therefore, Question No. 2 was decided against the assessee. Regarding the surviving issue of jurisdiction under Section 263 (Questions 1 and 3), the Court found the assessee's contention to be without merit. The Court reasoned that while the AO had allowed deduction on duty drawback for manufactured goods, the appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority primarily concerned the claim for deduction under Section 80-I on goods purchased from the market and exported. The Tribunal rightly observed that the specific issue of whether deduction under Section 80-I was available on duty drawback for manufactured goods was neither considered nor decided in the appeal. The explanation to Section 251 allows the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider matters arising out of proceedings, and Explanation 1(c) to Section 263(1) clarifies that revision powers extend to matters not considered and decided in appeal. Since the duty drawback issue was not decided in appeal, the CIT had jurisdiction to revise the order. The reliance on the Gujarat High Court's decision was deemed not well-founded as the issue in revision was not the subject matter of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the deletion of the addition of Rs. 4,46,75,000/- could not be sustained. The Court noted that the assessee had withheld information and avoided scrutiny by not producing the agreement of authorization during assessment or appellate proceedings. While the agreement has now been produced before the High Court, the Court found that the appellate authorities had not considered crucial aspects. Specifically, the AO had established that a significant portion of the advance was used for purposes other than procuring land for the TATA project, such as investment in M/s Gulmohar Landcon Pvt. Ltd. and an unsecured loan to Sh. Sudhir Chadha. The assessee also failed to provide documentary evidence for an investment with Sh. Darshan Singh, who denied receiving it. The Court found that the assessee's claim of no surplus generation from the advance was unsubstantiated, and the aspect of sale deeds being executed as GPA of land owners was ignored. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO to decide the issue afresh after providing an opportunity to the assessee, clarifying that the High Court's observations were not an expression on the merits of the issue.
The High Court upheld the addition of the amount transferred to PSWHMMS as income of the appellant. The Court noted that the decisions relied upon by the appellant (Sarladevi Sarabhai Trust, Shri Ram Memorial Foundation, and M.CT. Muthiah Chettiar Family Trust) were either dealing with section 11(1)(a) or were prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2002, and thus had no application to the present case. The Court specifically referred to paragraph 10 of the M.CT. Muthiah Chettiar Family Trust judgment, which emphasized that accumulation under section 11(2) requires a specific purpose, and merely repeating the trust's objects is insufficient. The judgment also highlighted that Explanation 2 to section 11(2) and section 11(3)(d) were introduced by the Finance Act, 2002, and were not applicable to the pre-amendment period. The Court concluded that the addition of the amount transferred to PSWHMMS was justified and upheld the ITAT's decision. The question was answered against the appellant, and the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal at this stage. The court granted liberty to the appellant to approach the authorities under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The court also clarified that for the purpose of the scheme, the appeal would be deemed to be pending, allowing for its revival if necessary. The reasoning was based on the appellant's stated intention to utilize the scheme, which was not yet fully operational. Any pending Civil Miscellaneous Application was also disposed of as the main case was decided.
The High Court allowed the appeal as prayed for by the Revenue. The Revenue had sought to withdraw the appeal on the grounds that the tax effect involved was below the monetary limit prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circulars. Specifically, Circular No. 3 of 2018, as amended by Circular No. 17 of 2019 and a subsequent letter dated 20.08.2019, were cited. The Court accepted the submission of the learned counsel for the revenue and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the proposed questions of law were not substantial questions of law but were pure questions of fact. The Court noted that the AO had made an addition based on a drastic drop in the net profit ratio, invoking Section 145(3). However, a subsequent remand report found no discrepancies in the books of accounts produced by the assessee. The CIT(A) deleted the addition based on this, and the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order. The High Court found that the core of the dispute revolved around the factual assessment of the books of accounts and the net profit ratio, which were matters of fact. Therefore, the Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The appeal was dismissed on this ground, without delving into the merits of the ITAT's decision or the cited Supreme Court case.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh held that since both the appellant and the respondents are in agreement (ad idem) that the issue involved in the present appeal (ITA No.126 of 2000) is identical to the issue in ITA No.125 of 2000, the present appeal shall be disposed of in the same terms as ITA No.125 of 2000. The Court noted that the appeal stands disposed of in terms of the decision in ITA No.125 of 2000. Any pending applications related to this appeal are also disposed of as a consequence of the appeal being disposed of. The specific findings or reasoning from ITA No.125 of 2000 are not detailed in this judgment, nor is the ratio decidendi explicitly stated, other than the principle of disposing of identical matters similarly based on consensus.
The High Court held that the addition for unexplained investment in construction should be made for the period in which the construction was carried out, not totaled in the last year. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal allowed the registration, finding no specific findings by the CIT(E) that the society was not working towards its objectives. The Tribunal also noted that a dissolution clause was subsequently added and the corpus fund was explained as being used for the temple's maintenance and development.
The High Court allowed the Revenue's prayer. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty granted to the Revenue to take all pleas in the appeal against the main order. The Court reasoned that since the main case (presumably the appeal against the main order) would be pursued, allowing withdrawal of this procedural appeal was appropriate. As the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, any pending applications related to this appeal were also disposed of.
The High Court held that the facts of the present case are covered by its earlier decision in ITA No. 283 of 2019, decided on February 20, 2020. Consequently, the petition was disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned earlier decision. The reasoning is based on the submission made by the appellant's counsel that the facts are identical. No specific findings on the merits of the case were made, as the appeal was decided based on the precedent. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the prior judgment. Any pending civil miscellaneous applications were also disposed of as a consequence.
The High Court allowed the prayer made by the Revenue's counsel. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty granted to the appellant (Revenue) to take up all the grounds of challenge mentioned in the connected appeal bearing ITA No. 139 of 2019. Since the main case was dismissed as withdrawn, any pending applications were also disposed of. No decision was made on the merits of the case.
The High Court noted that it was not disputed that the sister concern had also reflected the transaction and that this was ultimately accepted by the revenue. In light of these changed circumstances, both learned counsel agreed that it would be appropriate to decide the matter afresh. Consequently, the impugned order of the revenue was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The High Court did not decide the merits of the stock variation itself but rather directed a reconsideration based on the accepted transaction of the sister concern. Any pending civil miscellaneous applications were also disposed of as the main case was decided.
The High Court, noting that common questions of law and facts were involved across the seven petitions, decided to dispose of them by a common order. Both learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent fairly agreed that the most appropriate course of action would be to quash all the impugned orders and re-decide the matters, including the challenged notices, after considering the objections of the petitioners. The petitioner's counsel further agreed not to raise the plea of limitation. The Court held that the impugned orders should be quashed and the cases re-decided. The ratio decidendi is that where a previous High Court decision has already settled a similar issue regarding the treatment of an interest component as income, and both parties agree to a re-adjudication considering objections, the existing orders should be set aside for a fresh determination. The operative direction is to quash the impugned orders and re-decide the cases.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal, as prayed for by their counsel. The reasoning for dismissal was solely based on the revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals, as per the CBDT circulars. The court did not delve into the merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that appeals can be withdrawn by the revenue when the tax effect falls below the stipulated monetary limits, with potential for revival under specific conditions. Any pending applications related to the main case were also disposed of.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Revenue's counsel informed the Court that due to the tax effect being below the monetary limits specified in CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018 and Circular No.17 of 2019, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue also sought liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal in case any aspect of the matter survived. The Court granted this liberty. Consequently, any pending C.M. Application related to the main appeal was also disposed of.
The High Court held that the order of the ITAT was correct and dismissed the appeal. The Court reasoned that the mere existence of reasons on file does not validate them. For the requirements under Section 147 to be met, the reasons must at least be signed by the assessing officer. An unsigned document is considered an anonymous piece of paper to which no credence can be given. The Court emphasized that the action under Section 147 is quasi-judicial, and allowing unsigned documents would have serious consequences. Furthermore, the reasons were undated, which did not establish that they were recorded prior to the issuance of the notice. Therefore, the ITAT was justified in setting aside the reassessment proceedings on these grounds. The Court did not explicitly address all the framed questions individually but found the ITAT's primary reasoning regarding the unsigned and undated reasons to be sound, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court held that the question of law raised in the appeal was not a substantial question of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court allowed the application for dismissal of the appeal. The court noted that the revenue's counsel themselves stated that the facts of the present case were covered against the revenue by the decision of the High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh Vs. M/s Vardhman Chemtech Private Limited, Chandigarh, passed in ITA No.322 of 2016, decided on 28.08.2018. Consequently, the petition (appeal) was dismissed in the same terms as the aforementioned precedent. The reasoning was based on the concession made by the revenue's counsel and the binding nature of the prior judgment of the same court. Any pending civil miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court held that the matter in issue was no longer res integra and had been concluded by its own prior decision in ITA No.5 of 2016, titled "Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Vs. M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd.", decided on 25.04.2016. In that judgment, an identical question as claimed in the present appeal was held not to be a substantial question of law. Therefore, for the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, the present appeal was dismissed. Since the main case was dismissed, any pending Civil Misc. Application also stood disposed of.
The High Court held that the question of law raised in the appeal was not a substantial question of law. This finding was based on the Revenue's concession that the matter was concluded by the High Court's own prior decision in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Vs. M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd. (ITA No. 5 of 2016). In that precedent, an identical issue had been determined not to constitute a substantial question of law. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the present appeal. As the main appeal was dismissed, any pending Civil Miscellaneous Application was also disposed of.
The High Court allowed the application for dismissal of the appeal in terms of the CBDT circular. Subsequently, the revenue's counsel stated that the facts of the present case were covered against the revenue by the High Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh Vs. M/s Vardhman Chemtech Private Limited, Chandigarh (ITA No.322 of 2016). In light of this concession and the prior ruling, the High Court dismissed the present appeal in the same terms as ITA No.322 of 2016. The ratio decidendi is that if an appeal is covered by a previous judgment of the same court, and the revenue concedes this fact, the appeal should be disposed of accordingly. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court noted that the core dispute was whether the expenditure on "Maintenance of focal points" and "development expenditure over and above the estimate" was revenue or capital in nature. The Assessing Officer had treated it as capital, allowing depreciation, while the CIT(A) and ITAT held it to be revenue expenditure. The Court observed that due to the passage of time, the issue had become revenue neutral, as claiming depreciation on capital expenditure would offset any tax implications. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the appeal, leaving the questions of law open. No specific finding on the nature of the expenditure was given by the High Court, nor were any operative directions issued regarding deletion or remand.
The High Court held that the present appeal is covered by its previous decision in ITA No. 322 of 2016. The reasoning is based on the admission by the Revenue's counsel that the facts and legal issues are identical to the cited case. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal in the same terms as the earlier judgment. The ratio decidendi is that if an appeal is factually and legally identical to a previously decided case by the same court, it should be disposed of accordingly. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The High Court noted that with the passage of time, the dispute regarding whether the expenditure was revenue or capital in nature had become revenue neutral. This was because even if the expenditure were treated as capital, claiming depreciation would result in no tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of, keeping the questions of law open. No specific finding was given on the merits of the revenue vs. capital expenditure classification. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal without deciding the substantive issue.
The High Court noted that the dispute regarding whether the expenditure was revenue or capital in nature had become revenue neutral due to the passage of time. Even if the expenditure were capital, claiming depreciation would result in no tax effect. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal, leaving the questions of law open. No specific finding was given on the merits of the expenditure being revenue or capital. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal, rendering pending applications moot.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order that the expenditure was revenue in nature. However, due to the passage of time, the issue became revenue neutral as depreciation would offset any tax effect.
The High Court noted that the dispute regarding whether the expenditure was revenue or capital in nature had become revenue neutral due to the passage of time. It reasoned that even if the expenditure were classified as capital, the assessee would be entitled to claim depreciation, which would eliminate any tax effect. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal, leaving the questions of law open. No specific finding was given on the merits of whether the expenditure was revenue or capital. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as revenue neutral. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the core issue of classification was not decided on merits.
The High Court disposed of the appeal, keeping the questions of law open. The ITAT's decision upholding the CIT's order that the expenditure was revenue in nature was implicitly accepted due to the revenue neutrality.
The High Court held that the present appeal is covered by its earlier decision in ITA No. 322 of 2016, titled Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh Versus M/s Vardhman Chemtech Private Ltd, Chandigarh, decided on 28.8.2018. The reasoning provided is that the revenue's counsel admitted that the appeal is covered by the precedent. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in the same terms as the cited case. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal. Any pending applications, if any, were disposed of as a consequence of the main appeal being dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the appellant-revenue's submission that the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018, as amended by Circular No.17 of 2019. The court granted liberty to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with the liberty granted. No specific issue was decided on merits.
The High Court allowed the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. The court granted the appellant-revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted it. The reasoning for this decision was solely based on the appellant-revenue's submission regarding the tax effect being below the monetary threshold stipulated in CBDT circulars, which guided the revenue's decision to withdraw the appeal. The court noted that since the main case was dismissed as withdrawn, any pending applications also stood disposed of. No specific findings on the merits of the original dispute were made.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty prayed for by the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, should circumstances warrant it. The reasoning for the dismissal was solely based on the revenue's submission regarding the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals, as per the CBDT circulars. The court did not delve into the merits of the case. Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of as a consequence of the main appeal being dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was withdrawn by the appellant.
The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal. The Court noted that the revenue sought to contest the appeal on merits despite the tax effect being less than the monetary limits, citing an exception in para 10(b) of CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018, which pertains to adverse judgments where a Board's order, notification, instruction, or circular has been held illegal or ultra vires. The Court found that the ITAT's order did not deal with or rely upon any such notification, order, instruction, or circular, let alone hold it illegal or ultra vires. The Court also observed that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to declare a circular ultra vires. Therefore, the Court concluded that the case did not fall within the stated exception clause. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. However, the Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law claimed were kept open. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal, with no specific relief granted or deleted, and no issue left undecided as the appeal itself was dismissed on a procedural/jurisdictional ground related to the exception clause.
The High Court held that the issue involved in the present appeal (ITA No. 397 of 2019) is similar to the issue decided in ITA No. 396 of 2019. For detailed reasons recorded in the judgment of Sh. Ramesh Kumar's case (ITA No. 396 of 2019) decided on February 19, 2020, the present appeal was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that if an appeal raises an issue identical to one already decided by the same court, the present appeal will follow the precedent set by the earlier decision. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The learned counsel for the Revenue sought permission to withdraw the appeal in view of Circular No. 17 dated 8.8.2019, which raised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The tax liability in the present appeal was Rs. 81,61,350/-, which was below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal was not pressed on merits and was disposed of accordingly. No decision was made on the substantive issues of the appeal.
The High Court held that the issue of tax neutrality needed to be determined by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for this determination. The parties were given the liberty to take further proceedings as per law after the Assessing Officer's decision. The High Court did not decide on the core issue of the distinction between 'work's contract' and 'contract of supply' or the consequent tax liability. The ratio decidendi is that factual disputes regarding tax neutrality, which underpin the relevance of a legal issue, should be resolved at the assessment stage before the higher courts adjudicate on the merits of the legal question.
The High Court addressed questions (b) and (c) as covering the entire controversy. For question (c), the Court referred to its decision in ITA No. 134 of 2000—M/s Gita Forging (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax Patiala and another, decided on 5.2.2020, which was in favour of the assessee. For question (b), the Court noted the assessee's argument that the matter was covered by the Supreme Court decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kochi, 2002 (255) ITR 273. The revenue's counsel conceded that the Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. had dealt with the issue. The Court reproduced the Supreme Court's conclusion that the Assessing Officer, while computing income under Section 115J, has only the power of examining whether the books of account are certified by the authorities under the Companies Act as having been properly maintained. The AO has limited power of making increases and reductions as provided for in the Explanation to Section 115-J and does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation. Based on this, question (b) was answered in favour of the assessee. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to compute the income under Section 115J in accordance with law. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous as there was no whisper of an inquiry into the long-term capital gains, despite specific information from the Investigation Wing. The court found the invocation of Section 263 justified.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, noting that both the appellant and the respondent were ad idem (in agreement) that the issue involved in the present appeal was similar to that in CWP No. 17971 of 2019, titled Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi and others, disposed of the present appeal in the same terms as the aforementioned writ petition. The judgment does not specify the terms of CWP No. 17971 of 2019, nor does it detail the specific findings or reasoning applied to reach this decision, other than the mutual agreement of the parties. Therefore, the operative direction is to follow the disposal of the cited writ petition.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh decided to dispose of the present appeal in terms of CWP No.17971 of 2019 titled Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi and others. The reasoning is based on the consensus between the parties that the issue involved in ITA No.162 of 2019 is identical to the issue decided in the aforementioned writ petition. Therefore, the principle derived is that if parties agree that the facts and issues are identical to a previously decided case, the current case will be disposed of in similar terms. The operative direction is that the appeal is disposed of in terms of the earlier writ petition. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh decided to dispose of the present appeal in terms of CWP No.17971 of 2019 titled Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi and others. The reasoning is based on the consensus between the parties that the issue involved in ITA No.162 of 2019 is identical to the issue decided in the aforementioned writ petition. Therefore, the principle derived is that if parties agree that the facts and issues are identical to a previously decided case, the current case will be disposed of in similar terms. The operative direction is that the appeal is disposed of in terms of the earlier writ petition. No issue was expressly left undecided.