Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgments — 2018

The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The Court clarified that the withdrawal would not be considered an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits, and the legal issue claimed by the revenue was left open for adjudication in an appropriate case. The Court also ordered the withdrawal of the respondent's cross-objections and the applications filed therewith, as prayed for by the respondent's counsel. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the original dispute or the ITAT's decision.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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 ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No decision on the merits of the case was made.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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. 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 future case. The court did not decide the substantive merits 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 Court explicitly stated that the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. This implies that the merits of the case were not decided, and the withdrawal was purely procedural based on the tax effect and the CBDT circular.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. 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 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 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 left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. The specific findings or reasoning of the ITAT order under challenge were not discussed or decided by the High Court, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds related to withdrawal.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue the liberty 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 construed as 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 applications filed were also dismissed as withdrawn.

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. No specific finding on the merits of the original dispute was made.

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 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 claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The Court's decision was based on the revenue's instruction to withdraw due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in the CBDT Circular.

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 future case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted.

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 construed as 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. No finding was reached on the merits of the case.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, 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 construed as 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 allowed the revenue's appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn, granting 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 ITAT's order on its merits. Furthermore, the High Court explicitly stated that the legal issue claimed by the revenue was being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. The Court also ordered the withdrawal of the cross-objections and associated applications filed by the respondent assessee, as prayed for by their counsel.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. It granted 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 construed as 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 court did not decide the merits of the case.

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 future case. No specific findings on the merits of the case were made.

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 left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The Court also stated that this order would dispose of all pending miscellaneous applications.

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. No specific finding was given on the merits of the case, as the appeal was withdrawn.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, as prayed for by the revenue. Liberty was 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 construed as 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 High Court also noted that this order would dispose of all pending miscellaneous applications.

The High Court decided to dismiss 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 Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the Court explicitly stated that the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, is being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to revive.

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 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 also stated that all pending miscellaneous applications would be disposed of by this order.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The revenue's counsel acknowledged that the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, leading to the request for withdrawal. The court granted liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted. It was clarified that the withdrawal would not be considered an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the court explicitly stated that any legal issue claimed by the revenue remained open for adjudication in an appropriate future case, indicating that the merits of the Tribunal's decision were not examined or decided by the High Court.

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 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 on the merits of the case, and no specific findings were made on the substantive issues that might have been before the Tribunal.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. 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 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 court also stated that this order would dispose of all pending miscellaneous applications. The judgment does not provide the specific ITAT order being challenged or the assessment year(s).

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 Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No specific finding on the merits of the case was made as the appeal was withdrawn.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, as prayed for by the revenue. The court granted liberty to the revenue 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. 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 substantive merits of the appeal.

The 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 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 operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn, with the specified liberty and clarification.

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 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 respondent-assessee's prayer for withdrawal of CM-14819-CII-2018 was also ordered accordingly. The judgment does not record any specific findings on the merits of the original dispute or 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 claimed by the revenue was explicitly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The judgment does not provide reasoning on the merits of the case as it was withdrawn. No specific findings were made on any substantive legal issues.

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 operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn, with specific liberty granted.

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. 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 left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. The Court also ordered the withdrawal of CM-14858-CII-2018 as prayed by the respondent's counsel. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to revive.

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 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. No specific finding was given on the merits of the original dispute.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with the 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 Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The applications filed were also dismissed as withdrawn. The ratio decidendi is that withdrawal of an appeal under specific circulars does not preclude future adjudication of the legal issue, nor does it validate the lower authority's order.

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 its merits. Furthermore, the High Court explicitly stated that the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. No specific finding was given on the merits of the case, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground based on the revenue's instructions and the CBDT circular.

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 Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was explicitly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No finding was reached on the 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 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 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 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 judgment does not provide details of the ITAT's order or the specific legal issue.

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 ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the Court explicitly stated that the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. No specific finding on the merits of the original 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 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 also ordered the withdrawal of CM-14823-CII-2018 as prayed for by the respondent. The operative direction was dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to revive, and withdrawal of the miscellaneous application.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. It granted the revenue the liberty 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 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 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 Court explicitly stated that the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. This means the merits of the case were not decided, and the specific legal question raised by the revenue remains undecided.

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 claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The application for condonation of delay was also dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to revive.

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 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 was given on the merits of the case.

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 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 of the ITAT on the merits of the case were not discussed or decided by the High Court.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the liberty prayed for by 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 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 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 construed as an affirmation of the ITAT'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 operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, 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 construed as 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 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 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 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 claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No specific findings on the merits of the case were made as the appeal was withdrawn.

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 construed as an affirmation of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on merits. Furthermore, the court explicitly stated that the legal issue claimed by the revenue was being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No specific finding was given on the merits of the case.