Loading High Court cases…
588 orders · Page 3 of 12
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Revenue stated that the tax effect was ₹40.97 lakh, which is below the monetary limit of ₹50 lakh stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the Revenue did not want to press the appeal on merits. The Court accepted this submission and dismissed the appeal. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed. The question of law was also kept open.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. 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 considered an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The court did not decide the merits of the case.
The High Court allowed the application for dismissal of the appeal. The Court reasoned that the Revenue itself sought dismissal in view of the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which sets a monetary threshold for filing appeals before the High Court. The tax effect in this case was confirmed to be ₹26,08,324/-, which is below the ₹50 lacs limit. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed and kept the question of law open.
The High Court held that it was appropriate to remit the matter back to the respondent. The Court set aside the order dated 30.5.2012 passed by the respondent. The reasoning was that the respondent needed to apply the legal principles enunciated in the cited pronouncements to the facts of the case. The Court explicitly stated that its observations should not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy. The operative direction was to decide the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The issue of whether the petitioner is entitled to exemption was not decided on merits by the High Court in this instance.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. It granted the revenue the liberty 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 considered an affirmation of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The specific findings on the merits of the case, or the ratio decidendi for a future case, were not determined as the appeal was withdrawn.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn 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 considered an affirmation of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The judgment does not record any specific findings on the merits of the case or the reasoning that led to the original order under challenge, as the appeal was withdrawn by the revenue.
The High Court allowed the application filed by the Revenue. The Court held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which directs that appeals before the High Court shall not be filed where the tax effect is less than ₹50 lacs, and considering that the tax effect in this case was ₹39,55,479/-, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed. The question of law was also expressly kept open. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn 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 considered an affirmation of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The reasoning for withdrawal was based on the tax effect and the CBDT circular, and the court acceded to the revenue's request for withdrawal and liberty to revive.
The High Court allowed the revenue to withdraw 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 considered an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted.
The High Court held that the CIT's order under Section 263 was not illegal or perverse, warranting interference. The Court found that the AO had failed to apply his mind to the fact that the assessee's books of account were unreliable, given the discrepancies found during the survey and the subsequent surrender. The AO's assessment order was passed without necessary verification and accepted the assessee's explanations in a cursory manner. The Court noted that the assessee had made a conscious attempt to offset the surrendered income by manipulating GP and net profit rates. Therefore, the ITAT's order quashing the CIT's revisionary order was set aside, and the substantial question of law was answered in favour of the revenue. The Court also directed the CBDT to issue instructions to Assessing Officers to ensure proper scrutiny in cases involving surveys and surrenders, requiring them to discuss reasons for rejecting or accepting books of account rather than making cursory remarks.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Court noted the statement made by the learned counsel for the Revenue regarding the tax effect of ₹12,49,116/- and the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018. As the tax effect was less than ₹50 lacs, the Revenue did not wish to pursue the appeal on its merits. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed. The question of law was also kept open. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as not pressed.
The High Court, in view of the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, which stipulates a monetary limit for appeals, and the stated tax effect of ₹40,66,678/- being below the threshold, dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed. The question of law was expressly kept open. The finding is based on the Revenue's submission and the applicability of the CBDT circular, rather than a decision on the substantive merits of the case.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue liberty 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 considered an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal with liberty to revive.
The High Court held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as not pressed. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances change. The question of law was also kept open. The reasoning is solely based on the Revenue's decision not to press the appeal due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in the CBDT circular. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as not pressed, with liberty to revive and the question of law kept open.
The Tribunal decided that the appeal should be dismissed as not pressed. The reasoning provided is based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect of Rs. 12,69,186/- is below the threshold of Rs. 50 lacs stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the Revenue stated it did not wish to press the appeal on merits. The Tribunal accepted this submission and dismissed the appeal. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed, and the question of law was kept open. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original dispute.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the 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 considered an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, 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 merits of the case were not discussed or decided by the High Court as the appeal was withdrawn.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Revenue's counsel informed the Court that the tax effect involved was ₹7,93,010/-, which is below the monetary limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018. Consequently, the Revenue did not wish to pursue the appeal on its merits. The Court, in view of the CBDT Circular, allowed the Revenue's request to dismiss the appeal as not pressed. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed, and the question of law was expressly kept open.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The reasoning was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect of ₹27,18,703/- was less than ₹50 lakhs, making it fall within the scope of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which advises against pursuing appeals with a low tax effect. The court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed. The question of law was expressly kept open. No decision was made on the merits of the original dispute.
The High Court held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the appeal is dismissed as not pressed. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances change. The question of law was also kept open. The reasoning is based on the Revenue's concession due to the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The ratio is that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed limit, as per CBDT circulars, may be withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as not pressed, with liberty to revive and the question of law kept open.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The reasoning was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect of ₹30,91,102/- was below the threshold of ₹50 lacs stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the Revenue did not want to pursue the appeal on its merits. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed and kept the question of law open. No specific finding was given on the merits of the original dispute.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Revenue's counsel informed the Court that the tax effect was ₹36,11,260/-, which is below the threshold of ₹50 lacs stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the Revenue did not want to press the appeal on merits. The Court accepted this submission and dismissed the appeal. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed, and the question of law was kept open.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Revenue's counsel informed the Court that the tax effect was ₹26,97,431/- and, in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, which specifies a threshold of ₹50 lacs for appeals, they did not wish to pursue the matter on its merits. The Court accepted this submission and dismissed the appeal. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed. The question of law was expressly kept open.
The High Court decided to dismiss the appeal as not pressed. The reasoning was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect of ₹39,61,468/- was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the Revenue did not want to pursue the appeal on its merits. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed. The question of law was also expressly kept open. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding the tax effect of ₹2,73,000/- and the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which makes it unnecessary to press appeals with a tax effect below ₹50 lacs. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this procedural ground, rather than on its merits. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed. The question of law was expressly kept open. No specific finding was given on the substantive issues that might have been before the ITAT.
The High Court decided that in view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as not pressed. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed. The question of law was also kept open. The reasoning was solely based on the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in the CBDT circular, which guided the Revenue's decision not to pursue the appeal on its merits. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold, as per CBDT circulars, may be withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The High Court decided that the appeal should be dismissed as not pressed. The reasoning was based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect of ₹7,71,941/- was below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the Revenue stated it did not wish to press the appeal on merits. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed. The question of law was also kept open. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original dispute.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue, following the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Classic Binding Industries' case. The Court reasoned that Section 80IC provides for a deduction of 100% of profits for the first five assessment years commencing from the initial assessment year, and thereafter, a deduction of 25% for the next five years. Once an initial assessment year has commenced and the assessee starts enjoying the deduction under Section 80IC, there cannot be another 'initial assessment year' for the purposes of claiming 100% deduction on the ground of substantial expansion within the overall 10-year period. The Court distinguished the case from Mahabir Industries, where the initial deduction was claimed under different provisions (Section 80IA and 80IB) before Section 80IC was introduced. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the appeal is dismissed as not pressed. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances change. The question of law was also kept open. The reasoning was solely based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in the circular, making it unnecessary to adjudicate the merits of the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed limit in a CBDT circular can be dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to seek revival.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The reasoning was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel, who cited CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. This circular, concerning the monetary limit for appeals, indicated that the Revenue did not want to pursue the appeal on its merits because the tax effect of ₹48,44,179/- was below the threshold of ₹50 lacs. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed. The question of law was expressly kept open.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Revenue's counsel stated that due to the tax effect of ₹27,18,060/- being below the threshold of ₹50 lacs stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, they did not wish to pursue the appeal on its merits. The Court accepted this submission and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed, and the question of law was kept open. No decision was made on the substantive merits of the case.
The High Court held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the instant appeal is dismissed as not pressed. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if need be in changed circumstances, and kept the question of law open. The reasoning is based solely on the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for pursuing appeals. No decision on the merits of the case was made. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as not pressed.
The High Court decided the appeal based on the submission made by the Revenue's counsel. Citing CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which stipulates that appeals with a tax effect below ₹50 lacs should not be pressed, the Court dismissed the instant appeal as not pressed. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed. The question of law was also kept open. The reasoning is solely based on the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular and the Revenue's decision not to pursue the appeal on merits.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Revenue stated that the tax effect involved was ₹23,86,716/-, which is below the threshold of ₹50 lacs stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018. Consequently, the Revenue did not want to press the appeal on merits. The Court accepted this submission and dismissed the appeal. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed. The question of law was expressly kept open.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Revenue's counsel informed the Court that the tax effect in the case was ₹18,80,892/-. Citing CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below ₹50 lacs should not be pressed, the Revenue stated its intention not to pursue the appeal on its merits. Consequently, the High Court, in line with the circular and the Revenue's submission, dismissed the appeal. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed, and the question of law was expressly kept open.
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. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be considered an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The court did not decide the merits of the case.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the low tax effect of ₹49,826/-, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dhanalekshmi Bank Ltd. [2015] 373 ITR 526 (SC). In that case, the Supreme Court had dismissed the appeal without going into the merits due to the low tax effect, leaving the question of law open. The High Court clarified that the dismissal of this appeal would not be considered an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was expressly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case.
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. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be considered an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No specific finding was given on the merits of the case.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue the liberty 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 considered an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was explicitly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. The specific findings of the ITAT on the merits of the case were not discussed or decided by the High Court as the appeal was withdrawn.
The High Court held that the assessee is bound by RBI Guidelines issued under Section 45Q of the RBI Act, 1934, which have an overriding effect. Therefore, interest on principal loan amounts classified as NPA cannot be considered as having "accrued" for taxation under the Income Tax Act. The contention that the assessee was indirectly claiming a benefit similar to Section 43D was rejected. The Court noted that the Gujarat High Court had decided a similar issue in favour of the assessee in Shri Mahila Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd.'s case, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court. The recent amendment to Section 43D by the Finance Act, 2017, effective from 1.4.2018, specifically including cooperative banks, further supports the assessee's position for the period in question. The Tribunal's findings, upholding the deletion of the addition of ₹3,02,82,000 regarding interest accrued on NPAs, were found to be without illegality or perversity. The substantial questions of law were answered accordingly, and the appeals were dismissed.
The High Court accepted the submission of the revenue that the tax effect was ₹39,75,985/-. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The revenue was granted liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something further survived. The Court clarified that the withdrawal would not be 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 specific finding was given on the merits of the original assessment or appeal.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue liberty 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 considered an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. The Court did not decide the merits of the case.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue the liberty 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 construed as an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was explicitly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. The Court also noted that this order would dispose of all miscellaneous applications.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's findings. The Tribunal had rightly held that the reason for rejection by the CCIT could not be sustained. The Court noted that the CCIT had not taken an adverse view regarding the genuineness of the Assessee's activities, and the objects of the society clearly fell within the ambit of Section 10(23C)(vi). The Tribunal's reliance on the assessment order for AY 2012-13, which found the society to be existing solely for educational purposes, was considered valid. The Court agreed with the Tribunal that the potential benefit to individuals under Section 13(3) did not affect the genuineness of the activities of the trust, and that Section 13 is relevant only for exemptions under Section 11, not Section 10(23C)(vi). The Court also distinguished the reliance on CIT Vs. IILM Foundation Academy, stating that the issue in that case was different. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal was found to be in consonance with Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act.
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. 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. Furthermore, the legal issue that the revenue intended to raise was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. The court also stated that this order would dispose of all miscellaneous applications. No specific finding was given on the merits of the ITAT's order.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn 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 considered an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The judgment does not provide any reasoning on the merits of the case or the specific legal issue that was sought to be withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was 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 considered an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The specific findings or reasoning of the ITAT, which led to the order under challenge, were not discussed as the appeal was withdrawn before any substantive adjudication by the High Court.
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. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be considered an affirmation of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the court stated that the legal issue claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The judgment does not specify the specific order or action under challenge, nor does it detail the procedural history beyond the filing of the appeal.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue the liberty 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 considered an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The Court did not decide the substantive merits of the case.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue the liberty 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 considered an affirmation of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was explicitly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. No decision on the merits of the substantive tax dispute was made.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn 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 considered an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No specific finding on the merits of the case was given.