Loading High Court cases…
388 orders · Page 6 of 8
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 as the tax effect was less than ₹20 lacs. They sought liberty to revive the appeal if any surviving aspect warranted it. The Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, granting the liberty as prayed. It was clarified that the withdrawal would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits, and the legal issues were left open for adjudication in an appropriate case. Therefore, no specific findings were given by the High Court on the substantial questions of law raised.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, granting the revenue liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be considered 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 findings were made on the substantial questions of law regarding interest on interest-free loans, deletion of expenditure on foreign travels of directors' wives, exclusion of certain items from turnover for Section 80HHC computation, or the admissibility of expenditure on the death anniversary of an ex-director. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as not pressed.
The appeal was dismissed 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, and as the tax effect was less than Rs. 20 lacs, they did not wish to press the appeal. The revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed with the liberty granted. 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 were left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No specific findings were given on the merits of the three substantial questions of law.
The Revenue, through its counsel, submitted that it did not wish to press the present appeal 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, as the tax effect involved was less than Rs. 20 lacs. The Revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survived therein. The Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed with 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 claimed by the Revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case.
The High Court allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The court noted that the counsel for the appellant stated that in view of the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar in MA Nos. 85, 86 and 87 [ASR] of 2014, he wanted to withdraw this appeal. The court ordered accordingly. The miscellaneous applications filed in the appeal were rendered infructuous and disposed of in view of the withdrawal of the main appeal. The principle behind this decision is that an appellant has the right to withdraw their appeal, subject to procedural rules and the court's discretion, especially when no prejudice is shown to the respondent. No decision on the merits of the original dispute was made.
The High Court allowed the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning was based solely on the appellant's stated intention to withdraw the appeal, referencing the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, on February 29, 2016. The High Court noted that the applications filed in the appeal had become infructuous due to this withdrawal and disposed of them accordingly. No decision was made on the merits of the original dispute. The operative direction was to allow the withdrawal of the appeal.
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The court noted that the counsel for the appellant stated that in view of the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, in MA Nos. 85, 86 and 87 [ASR] of 2014, the appellant wanted to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the court ordered accordingly. The miscellaneous applications filed in support of the appeal were rendered infructuous and disposed of in view of the withdrawal of the main appeal. No decision on the merits of the original appeal was made.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Revenue had submitted that it did not wish to press the appeal due to the tax effect being less than ₹20 lacs, citing CBDT circulars. The Court granted the Revenue liberty 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 decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law raised.
The appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The appellant-revenue, through its 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, and considering that the tax effect involved was less than Rs. 20 lacs, they did not wish to press the appeal. The revenue sought 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, no specific finding was given on the substantial questions of law by the High Court.
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 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 were left open for adjudication in an appropriate case.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The dismissal was based on the Revenue's submission that they did not wish to press the appeal due to the tax effect being below Rs. 20 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part). The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived. 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 were left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Therefore, no decision was made on the merits of the four substantial questions of law.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Revenue, citing CBDT Circulars No. 21/2015 and No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part), stated that it did not wish to press the appeal due to the tax effect being less than Rs. 20 lacs. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives 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 issues were left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Therefore, no specific findings were given on the merits of the three substantial questions of law.
The High Court, in light of the judgments in Hero Cycles (P) Limited vs. CIT, Ludhiana (2015) 281 CTR 481 and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kapsons Associates (2016) 381 ITR 204, decided to remand the matter back to the Tribunal. The Court noted the Supreme Court's observation in Hero Cycles that the revenue cannot assume the role of a businessman to decide the reasonableness of expenditure once a nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business is established. The Court also referred to its own decision in Kapsons Associates, which held that if an assessee has adequate interest-free funds, it is sufficient to establish that amounts advanced interest-free cannot be added to the assessee's income, provided the interest-free advances do not exceed the interest-free funds available. The Tribunal was directed to decide the issue afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that the provision for arrears of salary was not a contingent liability. It was based on a State Government notification dated 7.1.2009 and a Board meeting resolution dated 18.3.2009, which clearly stipulated payment of arrears in two installments: 40% in FY 2008-09 (AY 2009-10) and 60% in FY 2009-10 (AY 2010-11). The Tribunal found that the liability for the 60% installment arose during the assessment year 2010-11. Since the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting and made the provision on an accrual basis, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not justified. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s findings. The High Court found that the Tribunal's findings were pure findings of fact, not illegal or perverse, and thus no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the concurrent findings of the authorities below regarding the addition of ₹25,00,000/- on account of cash credit under Section 68 of the Act were not shown to be illegal or perverse. The Tribunal had noted that the assessee could not produce any evidence regarding the source of the deposit of ₹25,00,000/- by Shri Ashok Bansal. The Tribunal reiterated that under Section 68, the onus is on the assessee to prove the identity of the creditor, their creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transaction. Since the assessee failed to produce documentary evidence regarding the source of the deposit and the creditworthiness of the creditor, and no submissions were made before the CIT(A) or evidence produced before the ITAT to explain the issue, the addition was held to be justified. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. Regarding the validity of reopening based on audit objections, the Tribunal had relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Limited, holding that reopening is permissible if the audit points out a factual error overlooked by the AO, but not if it pertains to a legal interpretation. The Tribunal found the audit objection in this case to be a factual error, not an interpretation of law, and therefore upheld the reopening. On the merits of the addition, the CIT(A) had noted that while the AO disallowed the expenses as prior period expenses, any expense incurred during the year was allowable. The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify and grant relief to the extent the expenses were incurred during the year under consideration. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s findings. The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's appreciation of evidence and case law, thus dismissing the appeal.
The High Court held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act was bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Tribunal had categorically recorded that the assessee had disclosed complete facts during the original assessment, and the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion, with no new material coming into possession of the Assessing Officer. The decisions cited by the revenue were already considered during the original assessment. Therefore, the reopening was quashed, and the appeal on this ground was allowed for assessment year 2006-07. Regarding the subsidies, the Tribunal, relying on the Gauhati High Court's decision in CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Limited, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Meghalaya Steels Limited, held that freight, insurance, and interest subsidies are derived from the industrial undertaking and are eligible for deduction under Section 80IB. The Supreme Court's ruling established that if subsidies reimburse costs incurred in manufacturing or selling products, there is a direct nexus with the industrial undertaking's profits, irrespective of the immediate source being the government. The revenue's reliance on other cases was deemed not advantageous in light of the Supreme Court's decision. The substantial questions of law were answered accordingly, and the appeals were dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The revenue's counsel stated that they did not wish to press the appeal due to the tax effect being below ₹20 lakhs, citing CBDT circulars. 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 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 given on the merits of the ITAT's decision regarding the disallowance of interest.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The revenue had submitted that due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars, they did not wish to pursue the appeal. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be considered an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issue raised by the revenue was explicitly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. Therefore, no finding was given on the merits of whether CST/Sales Tax and Excise Duty should be excluded from total turnover for Section 80HHC deduction.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal. 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. Therefore, no specific finding was given on the substantial questions of law raised by the revenue, nor was any reasoning provided for deciding those questions. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal with liberty to revive.
The appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The Revenue's 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, 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 granted liberty as prayed for and 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 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. 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, the Tribunal's findings on the three issues (disallowance of hospitality expenses, inclusion of sales tax in turnover for Section 80HHC deduction, and allowability of interest-free loan) were not adjudicated on merits by the High Court in this proceeding. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal with liberty to revive.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Revenue's counsel submitted that in view of the CBDT circulars regarding tax effect, they did not wish to press the appeal. 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 issue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The specific finding of the ITAT on the deletion of expenditure is not detailed in this High Court judgment, nor is the reasoning behind it. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as not pressed, with liberty to revive.
The High Court held that the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) requires the entire profits and gains of the cooperative society to be attributable to the 'collective disposal of the labour of its members'. This means the society's earnings must be through the utilization of the actual labour of its members. The Court noted that the assessee-society engaged Supervisors, Chowkidars, and daily wage labourers who were not members. The payment of ₹11,14,862/- as labour charges indicated substantial reliance on outside employees. Therefore, the income derived by the appellant could not be considered as derived from the collective disposal of its members' labour. The Tribunal was correct in upholding the disallowance. The Court distinguished the precedents cited by the assessee, noting that Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. dealt with clause (iii) and Punjab State Cooperative Bank Ltd. was factually distinguishable. The finding that the profit was not derived from the collective disposal of the labour of its members was concurrently recorded by the authorities below, warranting no interference.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Revenue's counsel stated that they did not wish to press the appeal in view of CBDT circulars concerning tax effect thresholds. 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 ITAT's order on merits, and the legal issue was left open for adjudication in an appropriate case. The specific finding of the ITAT on the deletion of expenditure was not adjudicated upon by the High Court.
The High Court held that the ITAT's order was not in error and no substantial question of law arose. The Court relied on its own previous decision in STA No.15 of 2015 (Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak vs. M/s Voice Telesystem), which followed the Delhi High Court's ruling in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Limited. The reasoning was that the third proviso to Section 254(2A), which stipulated that a stay would stand vacated after 365 days even if the delay was not attributable to the assessee, violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court found that this provision treated assessees who caused delays the same as those who did not, leading to hostile discrimination. Therefore, where the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee, the Tribunal has the power to grant an extension of stay beyond 365 days in deserving cases. The appeal filed by the Revenue was accordingly dismissed.
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, no finding was given on the substantial question of law raised by the revenue, and the ITAT's order was not affirmed or reversed on merits.
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. Therefore, the High Court did not decide the substantial question of law on merits. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as not pressed, with liberty granted.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision on all issues. Regarding the GP fall, the Court noted that the AO had assigned no reason for rejecting the books of account other than the decline in GP rate. The assessee maintained stock registers, and the AO had not controverted the inventory figures. The Tribunal correctly held that books of account cannot be rejected solely on the basis of a decline in GP rate, citing judicial precedents. For cash credits under Section 68, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the depositors, including their PANs and bank details. The AO had not discharged his duty to summon creditors when the assessee expressed inability to produce them but provided other evidence. The deletion of interest on these credits was also upheld. Concerning the capital subsidy on sales tax, the Tribunal correctly distinguished between subsidies for setting up industries in rural areas (capital receipt) and operational subsidies for running the business more profitably (revenue receipt). The subsidy was for encouraging industrial units in remote rural areas, thus it was a capital receipt. The assessee's option to pay half the deferred tax upfront did not convert the capital subsidy into a revenue item. The High Court found the ITAT's view plausible and based on appreciation of material and case law, and no substantial question of law arose.
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 given on the substantial question of law regarding the ITAT's cancellation of the Commissioner's order under Section 263.
The High Court dismissed the appeal on the preliminary ground of territorial jurisdiction. It noted that the assessment proceedings were initiated and completed at Hyderabad, with the AO being the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. The appeals before the CIT(A) and the ITAT were also filed at Hyderabad. Citing its own decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad vs. M/s Motorola India Ltd. and Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Gurgaon vs. M/s Parabolic Drugs Limited, the Court held that it lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate matters where the Assessing Officer is situated outside its territorial limits. Therefore, the Court returned the entire paper book to the revenue appellant for filing before the competent court of jurisdiction.
The appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The appellant-revenue, through its counsel, 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, it 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 ITAT's order on merits, and the legal issue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No finding was given on the merits of the ITAT's order.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Revenue, citing CBDT circulars regarding tax effect, expressed its unwillingness to pursue 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 construed as an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. The legal issue raised by the Revenue was explicitly left open for adjudication in an appropriate future case. Therefore, no finding was reached on the substantial question of law regarding whether the excess of security deposits over refunds was a trading receipt.
The appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The appellant-revenue, citing CBDT Circulars No. 21/2015 and 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 Rs. 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, no specific findings were made by the High Court on the substantial questions of law.
The High Court addressed two main issues. Firstly, concerning the deletion of the addition of ` 2,13,71,960/- as labour charges, the Court noted that this question was covered by its own prior decision in ITA No. 624 of 2010 (Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana v. M/s S.G. Exports), decided on 8.2.2011. In that case, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh decision. Therefore, the High Court answered this question in favour of the revenue and remitted the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Secondly, regarding the deletion of the addition of ` 1,50,000/- on account of cash credits in the capital accounts of new partners, the Court found that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal had deleted these additions after appreciating the material on record. The revenue's counsel could not demonstrate that the approach of the CIT(A) and Tribunal was erroneous or perverse. The Court affirmed the findings on this issue, considering the plausible view taken by the lower authorities and the justification for deleting the additions. The ratio is that when lower appellate authorities have taken a plausible view based on appreciation of evidence, and the revenue fails to demonstrate perversity, their findings should be upheld.
The High Court noted that the appellant-revenue, through its learned counsel, 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 8.3.2016, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, it did not wish to press the present appeal as the tax effect involved was less than Rs. 20 lacs. The revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survived therein. The Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed with 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.
The High Court held that the findings of the CIT(A) and the ITAT were based on a proper appreciation of the entire material and evidence on record. Regarding the addition of `38,50,000/- for unsecured loans, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion, noting that the assessee had furnished confirmations from loan creditors (Shri Deepak Mahindra, Dr. Murari Lal Aggarwal, and Shri Rajinder Mohan Singla) with their PAN numbers, thereby complying with the AO's requisitions. For the addition of `21,55,000/- concerning land purchase, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the sale price in the deed was confirmed by the sellers, and there was no evidence of payment exceeding the recorded consideration. It also noted that Section 50C applies to the seller, not the purchaser. Concerning the `24,10,000/- stamp duty payment, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the source was explained through cash available in the assessee's books, and the revenue had not controverted this. Finally, for the `1,30,000/- cash deposits, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion, finding that `90,000/- was received by cheque from Shri Gulshan Arora (who confirmed it) and the remaining `40,000/- was deposited from cash in hand, evidenced by the cash book. The Court found no perversity or misreading of evidence in the Tribunal's findings. Therefore, all substantial questions of law were answered against the appellant-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. It was 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 on the issue of security deposits being a trading receipt is not detailed in this High Court judgment, as the appeal was not pressed.
The High Court noted that 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, did not wish to press the appeal as the tax effect involved was less than ₹20 lacs. The Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, granting liberty 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, and the legal issue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No finding was given on the merits of the ITAT's order or the substantial question of law.
The High Court noted that the Revenue, through its counsel, submitted that in view of CBDT Circulars No. 21/2015 and No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part), it did not wish to press the present appeal as the tax effect was less than Rs. 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 with 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, and the legal issue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No finding was given on the merits of the penalty deletion by the ITAT.
The High Court noted that the appellant-revenue, through its counsel, submitted that in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part), it did not wish to press the present appeal as the tax effect involved was less than Rs. 20 lacs. The revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. The Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed with 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 issues raised were left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No finding was given on the merits of the substantial questions of law.
The revenue, through its counsel, submitted that in view of Circular No. 21/2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, it did not wish to press the present appeal as the tax effect involved was less than Rs. 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, and the legal issues 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 held that the findings of the Tribunal were pure findings of fact, arrived at after considering the entire evidence and material on record. The assessee had failed to produce any evidence to establish her claim regarding the source of deposits and the nature of transactions, despite several opportunities. The Tribunal had noted that deposits were made in cash, while withdrawals were by cheque, and the assessee had not declared any income from the alleged brokerage business. The plea for addition on the basis of peak credit was also declined, as was the production of additional evidence, which the Tribunal found irrelevant. The High Court found no perversity or error in the Tribunal's view, which relied on the decision in Sudhir Kumar Sharma's case. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The dismissal was granted with 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 ITAT's decision on the merits of the case, concerning the reasons for the second notice under Section 148 and the escapement of income, was not examined or affirmed 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 finding was given on the substantial questions of law regarding the distinction between manufacturing and repairing transformers, or the eligibility for deductions under Sections 80-HH and 80-I.
The High Court noted that the appellant-revenue did not wish to press the appeal in view of the CBDT circulars concerning tax effect thresholds. The appeal was dismissed 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 issues raised were left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Therefore, no finding was given on the merits of the substantial questions of law.
The appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The revenue's counsel submitted that in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the revenue did not wish to press the appeal as the tax effect involved was less than ₹20 lacs. The revenue sought liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The Court granted 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, and the legal issue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No finding was reached on the merits of the ITAT's order regarding the gift or the applicability of the cost inflation index.
The High Court dismissed the appeal 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. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the Revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits, and the legal issue raised by the Revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No finding was given on the merits of the substantial question of law.
The High Court noted that the appellant-revenue, in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, did not wish to press the appeal as the tax effect involved was less than ₹20 lacs. The Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, granting liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives 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 claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No finding was given on the merits of the issues raised.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The revenue, 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 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 survives 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. The legal issue raised by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision on the merits of the case, specifically regarding the on-money payment, was not adjudicated by the High Court.