Loading High Court cases…
499 orders · Page 2 of 10
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the Section 80G application as premature. The High Court agreed, stating that once Section 12AA conditions are met, further action regarding Section 80G can be assessed at the end of the financial year.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning provided is that the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue, based on instructions, sought to withdraw the appeal because the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed by Circular No.3 of 2018, as amended by Circular No.17 of 2019 and Letter No.F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019. The court granted liberty to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, in case something survives therein. As the main case was dismissed, any pending C.M. Application was also disposed of.
The High Court held that the reasoning of the Tribunal was correct, and that of the Commissioner was perverse. The Tribunal correctly reasoned that once the assessee accepted documents seized from his premises, owned the entries, and undertook to explain them in the next financial year but failed to do so, the amount represented by those entries was rightly added to his income. The High Court found no sufficient cause to reverse the Tribunal's finding of fact regarding the Gross Profit (GP) rate on the difference in stock. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the submission by the appellant-revenue that the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018, as amended by Circular No.17 of 2019, and further clarified by Letter No.F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019. The revenue was granted liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal, should circumstances warrant it. The pending C.M. Application, if any, was also disposed of as a consequence of the main appeal being dismissed. No specific issue was decided on merits.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the appellant-revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal, as prayed for. The reasoning for dismissal was solely based on the revenue's instruction to withdraw the appeal due to the low tax effect, as per the cited CBDT circulars. The court did not decide any substantive issue on merits. Any pending C.M. Application, if any, was also disposed of as the main case was dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the appellant-revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal, should any aspect of the matter survive. The court noted that the withdrawal was based on the tax effect being below the monetary limits prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) circulars. Since the main appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, any pending Civil Miscellaneous (C.M.) applications were also disposed of. The judgment does not provide any findings on the merits of the original dispute.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the appellant-revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal, as prayed for by their counsel. The reasoning for the dismissal was based on the appellant-revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated in the relevant CBDT circulars, indicating a policy decision by the revenue not to pursue appeals below a certain threshold. The ratio decidendi is that appeals can be withdrawn by the revenue based on monetary limits set by administrative instructions, with potential for revival under specific circumstances. Any pending Civil Miscellaneous Application was also disposed of as a consequence of the main appeal being dismissed.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted liberty to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, as prayed for by the revenue's counsel. The reasoning for the dismissal is solely based on the appellant-revenue's submission regarding the tax effect being below the monetary limit stipulated in the CBDT circulars, leading to instructions to withdraw the appeal. The court also noted that since the main case was dismissed, any pending C.M. Application also stood disposed of. No specific issue was decided on merits.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty as prayed for by the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, should circumstances warrant it. The reasoning for the dismissal is solely based on the revenue's submission regarding the tax effect falling below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars, which led to the instruction to withdraw the appeal. The court also noted that since the main case was dismissed, any pending C.M. Application also stood disposed of. No specific issue was decided on merits.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's exclusion of comparables, finding no perversity in the ITAT's findings of fact. For the subsequent year, the High Court set aside the ITAT's order and remanded the matter for re-examination of the assessee's IT services segment, considering additional evidence.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court granted the appellant-revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal, should circumstances warrant it. The reasoning for the dismissal was solely based on the appellant-revenue's instruction to withdraw due to the low tax effect, as per the cited CBDT circulars and letter. No finding was made on the merits of the original dispute. Any pending Civil Miscellaneous Application was also disposed of as a consequence of the main appeal being dismissed.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty as prayed for by the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, should circumstances warrant it. The reasoning for the dismissal was solely based on the revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated in the relevant CBDT circulars, which guided the revenue's decision to withdraw the appeal. The court did not delve into the merits of the case. Any pending C.M. Application was also disposed of as a consequence of the main case being dismissed.
The High Court decided to dispose of the appeals without going into their merits. The Court acknowledged the pending miscellaneous applications before the ITAT, on which arguments had been heard but no orders were passed for a considerable period. In light of this procedural delay and the pending applications, the Court deemed it appropriate to pass an order at that stage. The operative direction was a request to the ITAT to endeavor to decide the miscellaneous applications expeditiously. The Court did not decide the substantive issues raised in the appeals.
The High Court decided to dispose of the appeals without going into their merits. The primary reason for this decision was the pendency of miscellaneous applications before the ITAT, on which arguments had been heard but no orders had been passed for approximately three months. The Court deemed it appropriate to address this procedural aspect first. Consequently, the High Court requested the ITAT to make an endeavor to decide the pending miscellaneous applications expeditiously. No finding was given on the substantive issues of the appeals themselves, as they were not adjudicated upon.
The High Court decided to dispose of the appeals without going into their merits. The primary reason for this decision was the pendency of miscellaneous applications before the ITAT, on which arguments had been heard but no orders had been passed for approximately three months. The Court deemed it appropriate to address this procedural aspect first. Consequently, the High Court requested the ITAT to make an endeavor to decide the pending miscellaneous applications expeditiously. No finding was given on the substantive issues of the appeals themselves, as they were not adjudicated upon.
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival if circumstances warranted.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty as prayed for by the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, should something survive therein. The reasoning for dismissal was solely based on the revenue's instruction to withdraw due to the tax effect falling below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals. The court also noted that pending applications, if any, were disposed of as the main case was dismissed. No substantive legal issues were decided on merits.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The decision was based on the submission by the revenue's counsel that the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated in the relevant CBDT circulars. The court granted the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of as a consequence of the main appeal being dismissed. The judgment does not record any decision on the merits of the original dispute.
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. The reasoning for the withdrawal was based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated in the relevant CBDT Circulars. The court found no impediment to one of its judges (Ajay Tewari, J.) hearing the matter, despite having previously been counsel for the respondent-assessee, as the withdrawal was based on a CBDT Circular. The pending Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, was also disposed of as the main case had been decided.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, as prayed for by its counsel. The reasoning for withdrawal was explicitly stated by the revenue's counsel to be the tax effect being below the monetary limit stipulated in the relevant CBDT circulars and directives. The court did not decide on the merits of the case. Any pending Civil Miscellaneous Application (C.M. Application) was also disposed of as the main case was dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was withdrawn by the appellant.
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 reasoning for this decision was solely based on the revenue's instruction to withdraw the appeal due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circulars. The court did not delve into the merits of the case or any substantive tax issues. Consequently, any pending Civil Miscellaneous (C.M.) Application related to the main appeal was also disposed of.
The High Court decided to dispose of the appeals without going into their merits. The primary reason for this decision was the pendency of miscellaneous applications before the ITAT, on which arguments had been heard but no orders had been passed for approximately three months. The Court deemed it appropriate to address this procedural aspect first. Consequently, the High Court requested the ITAT to make an endeavor to decide the pending miscellaneous applications expeditiously. No finding was given on the substantive issues of the appeals themselves, as they were not adjudicated upon.
The High Court decided to dispose of the appeals without going into their merits. The primary reason for this decision was the pendency of miscellaneous applications before the ITAT, on which arguments had been heard but no orders had been passed for approximately three months. The Court deemed it appropriate to address this procedural aspect first. Consequently, the High Court requested the ITAT to make an endeavor to decide the pending miscellaneous applications expeditiously. No finding was given on the substantive issues of the appeals themselves, as they were not adjudicated upon.
The High Court decided to dispose of the appeals without going into their merits. The Court acknowledged the Assessee's grievance that miscellaneous applications filed before the ITAT had not been decided, even after arguments were heard. Given that approximately three months had passed since the hearing of these applications, the Court found it appropriate to pass an order at this stage. The High Court requested the ITAT to make an endeavor to decide the pending miscellaneous applications expeditiously. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeals with this request to the Tribunal, effectively deferring a decision on the substantive issues raised in the appeals.
The High Court disposed of the appeals without going into the merits. It requested the Tribunal to decide the pending miscellaneous applications expeditiously.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The dismissal was granted with the liberty prayed for by the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal. The court reasoned that the revenue had instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by the relevant CBDT circulars. As the main case was dismissed, any pending Civil Miscellaneous Application was also disposed of.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the appellant-revenue liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal, should something survive therein. The reasoning is based on the appellant-revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the relevant CBDT circulars, leading to instructions to withdraw the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal can be withdrawn by the revenue if the tax effect falls below the prescribed monetary limits, with a possibility of revival under specific conditions. Any pending C.M. Application, if any, was also disposed of as the main case was dismissed.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The revenue, represented by its counsel, informed the Court that it had instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limits as per the relevant CBDT Circulars and a subsequent letter. The revenue specifically prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted it. The Court granted this liberty. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn with the liberty granted. Any pending Civil Miscellaneous (C.M.) Application was also disposed of as a consequence of the main appeal being dismissed.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted liberty to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. The reasoning for the dismissal was based on the appellant-revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the relevant CBDT circulars, which consequently led to the withdrawal of the appeal. The court also noted that since the main case was dismissed, any pending C.M. Application also stood disposed of. No specific issue was decided on merits.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty sought by the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, in case something survives therein. The reasoning for dismissal is based on the appellant-revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals, as per the relevant CBDT circulars. The court also noted that since the main case was dismissed, any pending C.M. Application, if any, also stood disposed of. The ratio decidendi is that appeals can be withdrawn by the revenue based on monetary limits, with potential for revival under specific circumstances. No specific issue was decided on merits.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The revenue's counsel stated that due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars (Circular No.3 of 2018, Circular No.17 of 2019, and Letter No.F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ), they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The revenue also sought liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances warranted. The Court granted this liberty. The principle here is that appeals can be withdrawn by the revenue based on monetary limits set by CBDT circulars, and courts may grant liberty to revive such appeals under specific conditions. Any pending applications related to the main appeal were also disposed of.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the submission by the revenue's counsel that the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated in the CBDT Circulars. The Court granted the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal, should circumstances warrant it. No specific issue was decided on merits. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted as prayed for. Any pending civil miscellaneous application was also disposed of as a consequence of the main appeal being dismissed.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The dismissal was based on the appellant-revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals, as per CBDT Circulars. The court granted the appellant-revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal, should any aspect of the matter survive. The court also noted that any pending civil miscellaneous applications related to the main appeal would stand disposed of.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The revenue, represented by its counsel, stated that it had instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limits as per CBDT Circulars. The revenue specifically prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survived therein. The Court granted this liberty. Consequently, any pending Civil Miscellaneous Application (C.M. Application) was also disposed of as the main case was dismissed. No specific issues regarding income tax law were decided on merits.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the appellant-revenue's submission that the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) circulars. The revenue explicitly stated they had instructions to withdraw the appeal on this ground. The Tribunal granted the liberty prayed for by the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, in case something survives therein. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. No specific issues on merits were decided, and any pending applications were also disposed of as a consequence of the main appeal being dismissed.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The court noted that the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars No. 3 of 2018 and 17 of 2019, read with Letter No. F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court also granted liberty to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted it. Any pending civil miscellaneous applications were also disposed of as a consequence of the main appeal being dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning provided is based on the appellant-revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in its circulars (Circular No. 3 of 2018 and Circular No. 17 of 2019). Consequently, the revenue was granted liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal, should circumstances warrant it. The court also noted that since the main appeal was dismissed, any pending C.M. application, if any, also stood disposed of. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a low tax effect, as defined by CBDT circulars, can be withdrawn by the revenue, with a possibility of revival under specific conditions. No specific issue was decided on merits.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the appellant-revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal, as prayed for. The reasoning for dismissal was based on the appellant-revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated in the relevant CBDT circulars, indicating a policy decision by the revenue not to pursue appeals below a certain threshold. The ratio decidendi is that appeals can be withdrawn by the revenue based on monetary limits, with potential for revival under specific conditions. Any pending Civil Miscellaneous applications were also disposed of as a consequence of the main appeal being dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was withdrawn by the appellant.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty as prayed for by the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. Since the main case was dismissed as withdrawn, any pending Civil Miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. The court did not decide any substantive issue on merits as the appeal was withdrawn by the revenue based on the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals.
The High Court held that the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty prayed for by the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, should something survive therein. The court also noted that any pending C.M. (Civil Miscellaneous application), if any, stood disposed of as the main case was dismissed as withdrawn. The specific grounds for the original appeal or the decision of the lower authority are not discussed as the appeal was withdrawn.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty as prayed for by the revenue, allowing them to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. The court reasoned that the revenue had instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limits as per the cited CBDT circulars. Consequently, any pending C.M. (Civil Miscellaneous application), if any, was also disposed of. The specific findings on the merits of the original dispute, if any, were not addressed as the appeal was withdrawn. The ratio decidendi is that appeals below a certain monetary threshold, as per CBDT instructions, can be withdrawn with liberty to revive under specific circumstances.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty as prayed for by the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survived therein. The court noted that the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed in CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, as amended by Circular No. 17 of 2019 and Letter No. F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019. Consequently, the pending application, if any, was also disposed of as the main case was dismissed.
The High Court held that the petition must succeed and set aside the impugned order of the Settlement Commission. The Court found itself inclined to follow the view of the Bombay High Court in Yashovardhan Birla (supra), which was based on a binding decision of a co-ordinate bench in Income Tax Settlement Commission (supra). This precedent established that for the purposes of Chapter XIX-A of the Act, an assessment order is considered made only when it is served upon the assessee. The Court reasoned that this interpretation aligns with the object and purpose of introducing the settlement provisions. The Court distinguished the Gujarat High Court's decision in Shlibhadra (supra) by noting that in that case, the assessee had refused service, and also that leave had been granted by the Supreme Court in an appeal against that decision. The Court also considered the fact that the petitioner had communicated its intention to move the Settlement Commission to the AO prior to the dispatch of the assessment order. Consequently, the application for settlement was restored to the file of the Commission at the stage of Section 245D(1) of the Act, with the period of 14 days to run from the date of communication of this order.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the appellant-revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circulars. The court granted the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal, should any part of it survive. Any pending Civil Miscellaneous (C.M.) applications were also disposed of as a consequence of the main appeal being dismissed as withdrawn. The judgment does not provide any findings on the merits of the original dispute before the ITAT.
The High Court decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals, as per the relevant CBDT circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal, should circumstances warrant it. The principle derived is that appeals can be withdrawn by the revenue if the tax effect falls below the stipulated monetary limits, with potential for revival under specific conditions. The pending Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, was also disposed of as the main case was dismissed.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The dismissal was granted with the liberty prayed for by the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, should circumstances warrant it. The court noted that the revenue's decision to withdraw was based on the tax effect being below the monetary limits stipulated in the relevant CBDT circulars. As the main appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, any pending civil miscellaneous applications (C.M.) were also disposed of. The ratio decidendi is that appeals can be withdrawn by the revenue based on monetary limits, with potential for revival under specific conditions. No specific issue regarding the merits of the original assessment or appeal was decided.
The High Court condoned the delay of 160 days in re-filing the appeal on the grounds stated in the application. Subsequently, the learned counsel for the appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal allowed this request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the original appeal.
The High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue, who stated that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the relevant CBDT circulars and that he had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The court granted the liberty prayed for by the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. The pending C.M. application, if any, was also disposed of as the main case was dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was withdrawn.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the appellant-revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal, as prayed for by their counsel. The reasoning for dismissal was based on the appellant-revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated in the relevant CBDT circulars, which indicated a policy decision by the revenue not to pursue appeals below a certain threshold. Consequently, since the main case was dismissed, any pending applications in the matter were also disposed of. The specific issue decided was the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue.
The High Court decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, as prayed for. The reasoning for the dismissal was based on the appellant-revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals, as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 and Circular No. 17 of 2019. The court also noted that any pending applications in the main case would stand disposed of as a consequence of the main appeal being dismissed. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original dispute.