Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgments — 2018

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with the liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal.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 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 reasoning for withdrawal was based on the tax effect and the instructions received by the revenue's counsel from the CBDT circular. No decision was made 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 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 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein.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 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 reasoning for the dismissal was solely based on the revenue's instruction to withdraw due to the tax effect and the CBDT circular. No finding was reached on the substantive 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was explicitly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No decision was made 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 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 case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal with liberty to revive, and the finding on the merits of the ITAT's order was not addressed.

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 expressly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty.

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

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 judgment does not record any specific findings on the merits of the case or the reasoning behind the ITAT's original order.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn 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 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 decision was based on the revenue's instruction to withdraw due to the tax effect, as per the CBDT circular, and the court's discretion to grant liberty for revival.

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 expressly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The Court did not decide the substantive merits of the appeal.

The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The reasoning was that the petitioner had already availed the alternative remedy of appeal by filing an appeal against the impugned order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and this appeal was pending. Therefore, without opining on the merits of the controversy, the Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue their pending appeal. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition challenging an order is generally not maintainable when an effective alternative remedy of appeal has been availed and is pending. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition.

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 specific finding was given on the merits of the case, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.

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 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 reached on the merits of the case due to the withdrawal.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court granted the 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, 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 original dispute before the ITAT.

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 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 liberty granted to the revenue.

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 did not decide the merits of the case.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. It granted 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 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 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 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, as the appeal was withdrawn.

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 case. The Court did not decide on the merits of the case.

The High Court allowed the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. The Court granted the liberty sought by the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal. 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 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 finding was reached on the merits of the original dispute.

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. The Court did not decide on the merits of the 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 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 specific finding was given 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. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case as the appeal was withdrawn.

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, is being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. No specific findings on the merits of the original dispute were made.

The High Court decided to dismiss 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 its 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 was made on the merits of the ITAT's order.

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, 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 operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn with liberty.

The High Court allowed the revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, should something survive. 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 future case. Consequently, the cross-objections filed by the assessee were also disposed of as infructuous. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

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 explicitly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. It granted 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. No specific finding was given 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 construed as an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue that the revenue intended to raise was expressly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. The Court also noted that this order would dispose of all pending miscellaneous applications.

The High Court dismissed the appeal 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. 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 construed as 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. In consequence of the main appeal being withdrawn, the cross-objections filed by the assessee were disposed of as infructuous. No specific finding was given on the merits of the case.

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 specific finding was given on the merits of the case as the appeal was withdrawn.

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 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 judgment did not record any decision on the merits of the case.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. 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 ITAT's order on merits. 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. 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 ITAT's order on its 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 no decision on the substantive merits of the case was made, and the legal question remains undecided.

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 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 made as the appeal was withdrawn.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. It granted 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 case. The Court did not decide 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 ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was explicitly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No decision on the merits of the case was made.

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 construed as an affirmation of the ITAT's order on its merits. Furthermore, the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. 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. No specific finding was given on the merits of the case as the appeal was withdrawn.

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 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 findings were made on the merits of the ITAT's order.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn 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 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 judgment does not provide reasoning on the merits of the case as it was withdrawn by the revenue.

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. No specific finding was made on the merits of the case.

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 its 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 was made on the merits of the ITAT's order, and no operative directions were issued regarding the assessment itself.

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.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The dismissal was based on the revenue's instruction to withdraw due to the tax effect of ₹12,70,205/-, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. 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 Tribunal'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. No specific finding was given 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. No specific finding on the merits of the case was made as the appeal was withdrawn.

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 expressly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No specific finding was reached on the merits of the case, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds.