Loading High Court cases…
388 orders · Page 5 of 8
The High Court allowed the Department's request to withdraw the reference. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant-Department sought leave to withdraw the reference on the ground that the tax effect was less than Rs.20 lacs, in accordance with Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. Consequently, the reference was disposed of. The Court clarified that this order would not prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties in any other appropriate proceedings. No specific finding was made on the merits of the case, as the withdrawal was based on administrative instructions regarding tax effect.
The High Court held that the appeal involved questions of fact rather than substantial questions of law. The Court noted that the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal had concurrently upheld the assessee's contentions. The Tribunal's reasoning, which the High Court found persuasive, included the fact that the assessee had declared sales of over Rs. 2.17 crores with a reasonable gross profit margin, and the audited books of account were not questioned. Crucially, payments for the disputed purchases were made through account payee cheques, which were not questioned by the AO, making the creditors traceable. The Tribunal also observed that the AO had not acted upon the information provided by the assessee at a late stage and had failed to summon the creditors despite having their particulars. Consequently, the High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order. The appeal was dismissed, and other dependent questions were also disposed of accordingly.
The High Court allowed the appellant-Department's request to withdraw the reference. The Tribunal noted that the appellant-Department sought leave to withdraw the reference based on the tax effect being less than Rs. 20 lacs, in compliance with Circular No. 21/2015 dated December 10, 2015. Consequently, the reference was disposed of. The Court explicitly stated that this order would not prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties in any other appropriate proceedings. No specific questions of law were decided on merits, and no ratio decidendi was established for future citation on the substantive issues of the case.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the reference. The reasoning was based on the appellant-Department's submission that the tax effect was below the threshold of Rs. 20 lacs, as stipulated in Circular No. 21/2015. The Tribunal noted that this withdrawal would not impact the parties' rights or contentions in any other appropriate proceedings. The operative direction was to dispose of the reference as withdrawn. No issues of law or fact were decided on merits.
The High Court granted the appellant-Department's request to withdraw the reference. The reasoning provided is that the tax effect is less than Rs. 20 lacs, and the Department is acting in accordance with Circular No. 21/2015, dated December 10, 2015. The Tribunal disposed of the reference accordingly. The Court explicitly stated that this order would not prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties in any other appropriate proceedings. No specific questions of law or fact were decided on merits.
The High Court granted the appellant-Department's request for leave to withdraw the Income Tax Reference (ITR) No. 73 of 1998. The Court reasoned that the withdrawal was permissible based on the stated ground that the tax effect was below the threshold of Rs. 20 lacs, as per Circular No. 21/2015. The reference was accordingly disposed of. The Court also clarified that this order would not prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties in any other appropriate proceedings. No decision was made on the merits of the original reference.
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the reference sought by the appellant-Department. The reasoning was based on the Department's submission that the tax effect was below the threshold of Rs. 20 lacs, as stipulated in Circular No. 21/2015, dated December 10, 2015. The Tribunal held that in view of this circular, the reference was no longer required to be pursued. The operative direction was to dispose of the reference. The principle established is that the Department can withdraw appeals or references if the tax effect falls below a specified limit, as per its administrative circulars. The court explicitly stated that this order would not impact the rights and contentions of the parties in any other appropriate proceedings.
The High Court granted the appellant-Department leave to withdraw the reference. The Court noted that the withdrawal was based on the ground that the tax effect was less than Rs. 20 lacs, as per Circular No. 21/2015. Consequently, the reference was disposed of as withdrawn. The Court also clarified that this order would not prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties in any other appropriate proceedings. No specific questions of law or fact were decided on merits.
The High Court granted the appellant-Department's request to withdraw the reference. The Court noted that the Department sought leave to withdraw based on the tax effect being less than Rs. 20 lacs, citing Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. Consequently, the reference was disposed of as withdrawn. The Court clarified that this order would not prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties in any other appropriate proceedings. No specific questions of law or fact were decided on merits.
The High Court answered the substantial question of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Court's decision was based on the reasoning provided in the Supreme Court's judgment in Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC). The ratio decidendi is that DEPB benefits, being incentives or subsidies, are not considered profits derived from the eligible business for the purpose of deduction under Section 80IB. Consequently, the ITAT's direction to grant the deduction on the value of DEPB was reversed. The appeal was disposed of, implying the Revenue's appeal was allowed.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeals. The Court found that the assessee's business was to provide housing, and after development and sale of colonies, maintenance was usually handed over to municipal committees. However, for colonies at South Vihar and Narnaul, which did not fall within municipal limits, the Board had to undertake maintenance as per its decision. The expenses incurred were for repair and maintenance of existing infrastructure (roads, parks, street lights, boundary walls) and did not create any new asset. The enduring benefit accrued to the allottees, not the assessee, and the assets did not belong to the assessee. Therefore, the expenditure was revenue in nature. The Court distinguished the revenue's relied upon case, Arvind Mills Limited, where the expenditure led to an increase in the value of the assessee's land, making it capital expenditure. The Court confirmed the orders of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal.
The High Court held that the view adopted by the Tribunal was plausible and based on the appreciation of the material on record, thus not warranting interference. The Tribunal had categorically recorded that the assessee failed to prove the identity of the creditors, their capacity, and the genuineness of the transactions. It was observed that the additional evidence produced before the CIT(A) was insufficient to discharge the onus on the assessee, and the assessee also failed to explain why this evidence was not produced before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted the absence of independent confirmation from creditors and the lack of purchase vouchers for the sum of ₹5,80,100, leading to the conclusion that the assessee booked bogus purchases and credit entries. The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the Tribunal's order and concluded that no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was consequently dismissed.
The High Court held that the concurrent findings of the AO, CIT(A), and Tribunal that the Savings Bank Account No. 16860 in the name of Shri Sube Singh was, in fact, a benami account of the assessee, and the additions made based on peak amounts therein for the relevant assessment years were justified. The Court found that the passbook was found in the assessee's custody, the introduction to the account was made by the assessee's wife, and withdrawals and deposits were made by the assessee and his sons. The account was also closed immediately after the search. The Tribunal had noted that the assessee did not dispute the passbook's presence, the bank manager's statement about payments to the assessee and his sons, or the account closure date. The assessee failed to provide evidence of loan repayment or details of property transactions. The Court concluded that the assessee had not been able to produce any material to controvert the well-reasoned findings of the authorities below. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed. The issue of action against Sube Singh and the applicability of specific judgments were implicitly rejected by the affirmation of the lower authorities' findings.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Revenue's counsel submitted that in view of CBDT circulars No. 21/2015 and No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part), the appeal was not being pressed as the tax effect was less than ₹20 lacs. The Revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The Court granted this liberty. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the Revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits, and the legal issues raised were left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Therefore, the specific findings on the questions of law were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.
The appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The Revenue's counsel, citing CBDT circulars No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 and No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 08.03.2016, stated that they did not wish to press the appeal as the tax effect was less than ₹20 lacs. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives. The High Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the Revenue would not be considered an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits, and the legal issues raised were left open for adjudication in an appropriate case. Therefore, no decision was reached on the merits of the substantial questions of law.
The appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The Revenue's counsel, citing Circular No. 21/2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part), stated that they did not wish to press the appeal as the tax effect involved was less than INR 20 lacs. The Revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The Court granted this liberty. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the Revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issue, as claimed by the Revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No finding was reached on the merits of the substantial questions of law.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, granting liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken as an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. The legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Therefore, no finding was given on the substantial question of law regarding whether the excess of security deposits over refunds is a trading receipt.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. The legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The specific finding of the ITAT regarding the AO's order being beyond the time limitation prescribed under Section 153, and the reasoning thereof, were not adjudicated upon by the High Court due to the revenue not pressing the appeal.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Revenue, citing Circular No. 21/2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, stated that they did not wish to press the appeal as the tax effect involved was less than Rs. 20 lacs. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits, and the legal issue raised by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial question of law.
The High Court, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue, dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The court granted liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Therefore, no specific findings were given on the substantial questions of law regarding the validity of service of notice or the timeliness of service.
The High Court, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue, decided not to press the appeal. The court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, granting liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The court explicitly stated that the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Therefore, no finding was given on the substantial questions of law raised.
The learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 08.03.2016, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the revenue did not wish to press the present appeal as the tax effect involved was less than `20 lacs. The revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survived therein. The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issue as claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. The legal issue concerning the validity of service of notice was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No finding was reached on the substantial question of law raised by the revenue.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Therefore, no finding was rendered on the substantial question of law concerning the use of seized materials for assessment. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as not pressed, with liberty granted.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision on the merits of the substantial question of law was not affirmed or decided by the High Court.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Therefore, no decision was rendered on the merits of the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal concerning the exclusion of income from the Prince Raninder Singh Trust, inherited properties, and other sources from the assessee's individual assessment.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, granting liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The specific findings of the ITAT on the interpretation of Section 80HHC and Section 10B were not discussed or affirmed by the High Court due to the appeal not being pressed.
The appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The Revenue's counsel, in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, stated that they did not wish to press the appeal as the tax effect involved was less than ₹20 lacs. The Revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The Court granted liberty as prayed. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the Revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issue raised by the Revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, granting liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Therefore, the specific findings on the exclusion of income from the Prince Raninder Singh Trust, inherited properties, and other sources, as directed by the ITAT, were not adjudicated on merits by the High Court. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as not pressed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The revenue's counsel, citing CBDT circulars regarding tax effect, stated they did not wish to press the appeal. The court granted the revenue liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be considered an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. The legal issue raised by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. No finding was given on the merits of the ITAT's decision regarding the allowability of the expenditure.
The High Court dismissed the reference as not pressed, granting liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the reference if something survived. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the reference by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Therefore, no decision was made on the substantial question of law regarding the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The High Court dismissed the reference as not pressed. The revenue, citing CBDT Circulars No. 21/2015 and No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part), stated it did not wish to press the reference due to the tax effect being less than ₹ 20 lacs. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the reference if circumstances warranted. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the reference by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. The legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No finding was reached on the merits of the substantial question of law.
The High Court dismissed the reference as not pressed. The revenue's counsel stated that they did not wish to press the reference due to the tax effect being below ₹20 lacs, citing CBDT Circulars. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the reference if circumstances warranted. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the reference by the revenue would not be considered an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. The legal issue raised by the revenue was expressly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. Therefore, no finding was given on the substantial question of law regarding the allocation of trust loss to beneficiaries.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The revenue, citing CBDT circulars regarding tax effect, indicated its intention not to press the appeal. The court granted liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No finding was given on the substantial question of law raised.
The High Court dismissed the reference as not pressed. The revenue, citing CBDT Circulars No. 21/2015 and 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part), indicated its intention not to press the reference due to the tax effect being below ₹ 20 lacs. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the reference if circumstances warranted. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the reference by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. The legal issue raised by the revenue was expressly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Therefore, no finding was given on the merits of the substantial question of law.
The High Court dismissed the references as not pressed. The Revenue, citing CBDT Circulars, stated they did not wish to pursue the matter due to a low tax effect (less than ₹20 lacs). The Court granted the Revenue liberty to file an application for revival of the references if circumstances warranted. It was clarified that the withdrawal by the Revenue would not be considered an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issue itself was left open for adjudication in an appropriate future case. Therefore, no finding was reached on the merits of whether the assessee had the option to substitute the cost of agricultural land as on 28.2.1979 for capital gains taxation.
The High Court held that substantial questions of law did not arise from the ITAT's order. Question (i) was deemed general. Question (ii) was considered concluded by a previous decision of the High Court in favour of the revenue. Questions (iii) and (vi) were dismissed as they were not argued before the ITAT. Regarding questions (iv) and (v), the Court found no error or perversity in the ITAT's approach. The ITAT had correctly observed, citing Supreme Court decisions, that deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) is available only for core activities of the society. Interest earned from employees on loans, similar to interest from banks not being a core activity, was rightly held by the ITAT as 'income from other sources' and not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The ITAT had set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the AO's order on this point. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the matter was no longer res integra, referring to its own prior decision in ITA No. 566 of 2008 for the assessment year 2003-04 concerning the same assessee (M/s Shimla Chandigarh Diocese Society, Catholic Church, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh). In that earlier decision, both substantial questions of law were adjudicated against the revenue, and the appeal was dismissed. Furthermore, a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21049 of 2010 filed against that earlier order was dismissed by the Apex Court on 01.08.2011. Consequently, the High Court answered the substantial questions of law in favor of the assessee and dismissed the revenue's appeal.
The High Court held that the matter was no longer res integra. It referred to its own previous decisions in STA No.15 of 2015 (Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak vs. M/s Voice Telesystem) and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Limited, ITA No.5 of 2016. In these cases, interpreting provisions pari materia to Section 254(2A) of the Act, the Court had concluded that interim protection can continue beyond 365 days in deserving cases where the delay in disposal of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee, particularly due to the pressure of pendency of cases. The Court relied on the Apex Court's judgment in Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Ahmedabad vs. Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Limited. Accordingly, the High Court found no error in the impugned order passed by the ITAT and held that no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the order of the Tribunal. The Court found no illegality or perversity in the findings of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The CIT(A) had cancelled the penalty, observing that the omission to add back the capital gains tax and property tax was a mistake of the assessee's then counsel, and that no one had benefited from this omission, particularly as the assessee is an undertaking of the Government of Punjab. The Tribunal affirmed these findings, noting that the assessee had submitted a revised computation, paid tax on the impugned amounts suo motu, and that the omission was due to an inadvertent mistake by the counsel. The Tribunal concluded that there was no intention to conceal income and declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. The High Court agreed with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities and dismissed the revenue's appeal.
The High Court held that the ITAT was correct in upholding the order of the CIT(A) and deleting the addition of ₹56,48,840/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of interest relatable to investment in capital work-in-progress. The Court found no error or perversity in the approach of the Tribunal. The reasoning was based on the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, which requires disallowance of interest paid on capital borrowed for acquisition of assets until they are put to use, provided interest-bearing capital was utilized. The Tribunal had noted that the total CWIP as on 31.03.2005 was ₹364.44 lacs, with an opening balance of ₹331.68 lacs and additions of ₹32.76 lacs during the year. Crucially, the assessee claimed no loans were outstanding as on 31.03.2004 and 31.03.2005, and no interest-bearing funds were used for the opening CWIP. This was supported by a previous ITAT decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2004-05. For additions made during the year, the assessee claimed no fresh loans were borrowed, and the Revenue failed to produce contrary evidence. Thus, the deletion of the addition was upheld.
The High Court decided both issues against the revenue. Regarding the first issue, the Court referred to its own prior judgment in ITA No. 437 of 2015 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v. M/s Ramesh Steels, Ludhiana) decided on February 2, 2016, which held that keyman insurance policies taken out in respect of partners of a firm are admissible expenditure. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the deduction. Concerning the second issue, the Court noted the assessee's submission that for AY 2004-05, ₹5,31,506 was related to that year, and the remaining ₹84,68,494 pertained to AY 2005-06. The assessee also clarified that a total premium of ₹90 lacs was paid in AY 2005-06, and whether accounted for on a cash or accrual basis, the allowable deduction for the year remained ₹90 lacs. The revenue's counsel was unable to demonstrate that the deduction was erroneously granted. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court decided questions (I) to (IV) against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. It noted that after the ITAT's remand order, the AO passed an assessment order dated 20.12.2010 accepting the assessee's claim, and the Revenue did not dispute this outcome. Therefore, the ITAT's decision to restore the issue to the AO for verification was ultimately vindicated by the subsequent AO's order. Regarding question (V), concerning the deletion of the ₹6,16,645/- addition, the High Court upheld the ITAT's finding. The Tribunal had noted that the amount received by the assessee from Saini Car Scheme was for business purposes, and the assessee had advanced loans to employees for business purposes without charging interest. The Revenue had not controverted this factual matrix or produced contrary material before the Tribunal. The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's approach and upheld its decision to dismiss the revenue's ground regarding this addition. Consequently, both appeals (ITA No. 705 of 2009 and ITA No. 380 of 2010, which related to penalty) were dismissed.
The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in denying exemption under Section 11 of the Act solely on the ground that the expenditure was capital in nature. The Court relied on its own judgment in Pinegrove International Charitable Trust vs. Union of India and others (2010) 327 ITR 73, which, following the Apex Court's decision in S.RM.M.CT.M Teruppani Trust's case, established that capital expenditure incurred by an institution for its charitable objects constitutes an application of income and is eligible for exemption under Section 11(1) of the Act. The Court also referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Division Light Mission (2005) 278 ITR 659, which similarly held that amounts spent on acquiring capital assets for the trust were exempt. The Court noted that the town development expenditure and expenditure on works were incurred by the Improvement Trust under the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922, and thus entitled to exemption. The revenue could not dispute this settled legal position. The substantial question of law was answered in favour of the assessee.
The Revenue, through its learned counsel, submitted that in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, it did not wish to press the present appeal as the tax effect involved was less than ₹20 lacs. The Revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, granting the liberty as prayed for. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the Revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issue, as claimed by the Revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No findings were given on the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. The Revenue, citing CBDT circulars No. 21/2015 and 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part), stated that it did not wish to press the appeal as the tax effect was less than ₹20 lacs. The Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, granting liberty to the Revenue to file an application for revival if something survives. The Court clarified that the withdrawal would not be an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits, and the legal issues were left open for adjudication in an appropriate case. Therefore, there was no finding on any of the specific issues raised, nor any operative directions beyond dismissing the appeal as not pressed.
The appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The Revenue's counsel, citing CBDT circulars No. 21/2015 and No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part), stated they did not wish to press the appeal as the tax effect involved was less than ₹20 lacs. The Revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The Court granted this liberty. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the Revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits, and the legal issues raised were left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No finding was reached on the merits of the substantial questions of law.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Revenue's counsel submitted that in view of CBDT circulars No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 and No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, the appeal was not being pressed as the tax effect involved was less than ₹ 20 lacs. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits, and the legal issues were left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No finding was given on the merits of the two questions of law.
The High Court did not decide the appeal on merits. The learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, the appeal was not being pressed as the tax effect involved was less than ₹20 lacs. The Revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, granting the liberty as prayed for. It was clarified that the withdrawal would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits, and the legal issues raised were left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No finding was given on any of the substantial questions of law.
The appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The Revenue's counsel, citing CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part), stated that they did not wish to press the appeal due to the tax effect being less than ₹20 lacs. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the Revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issues raised by the Revenue were left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Therefore, no specific finding was given on the substantial questions of law framed.