Loading High Court cases…
601 orders · Page 6 of 13
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The reasoning was based on the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had submitted that the present case did not fall within the exceptions to the Circular. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. The operative direction was that the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications were also dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the case.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The decision was based on the revised monetary limits for filing appeals as per the CBDT Circular.
The Tribunal allowed the prayer of the Revenue to withdraw the present appeal. The reasoning was based on the application of CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated September 17, 2024. The circular revised the monetary limits for filing appeals before the Income Tax Tribunal, High Courts, and the Supreme Court. The Tribunal noted that the modifications came into effect from the date of issuance of the circular and therefore apply to all appeals pending before the Supreme Court, High Court, and Tribunal. Since the present case did not fall within the exceptions to the monetary limits as per Circular No. 5/2024, the Revenue's request for withdrawal was acceded to. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal also directed that all pending applications stand dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose or obsolete. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench that legislative enactments having financial implications must be followed mandatorily. Exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting the assessment in a faceless manner as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961. The Court set aside the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2023 for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The present writ petition was allowed, and the notice dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure P-9) issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings were set aside.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. Authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to taxpayers. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid their implementation. The Court found that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings, initiated without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were contrary to the Act. Consequently, the notices dated 27.03.2024 and all consequential proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The Court allowed the writ petition, with interim orders merging with the final order.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench that legislative enactments must be followed strictly and mandatorily. Powers under Sections 119, 120, and 144B (7 & 8) of the Act cannot be used to usurp legal provisions for convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and proceedings initiated thereafter, without conducting the faceless assessment under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the Act. The notices dated 27.03.2024 and all consequential proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The Court allowed the writ petition in terms of the prior judgments.
The Tribunal held that instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions and cannot be issued to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments must be followed strictly. The powers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), do not allow revenue authorities to usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. The Court agreed with the Coordinate Bench that instructions can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 dated 16.03.2024, and other consequential proceedings initiated without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the Act and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised. The writ petition was allowed.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 144B, were invalid for want of jurisdiction. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench, which held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or be issued to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The Court found that by exercising powers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the assessment authorities could not usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Consequently, the notices dated 22.03.2024, 16.03.2023, 23.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, were set aside. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, if so advised. The present writ petition was allowed, and the interim order merged with the final order.
The High Court held that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated thereafter, without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The court agreed with the view taken by the coordinate bench that circulars or instructions by the Board could not override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The court found no occasion to take a different view from what was already held by the coordinate bench. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. The writ petition was allowed in terms of the previous judgments.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The Court found that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120, and Section 144B (7 & 8), authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their convenience, causing hardship and confusion. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench in previous judgments, stating that instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessments under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act and were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The respondents were granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The Court allowed the writ petition in terms of the previous judgments.
The Tribunal allowed the writ petition. It held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings initiated thereafter, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, particularly Section 144B, which envisages faceless assessment. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench in similar cases, stating that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. The Court emphasized that legislative enactments must be followed strictly and mandatorily, and authorities cannot use powers to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship to assessees. Therefore, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and the order dated 30.03.2023 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions. It held that instructions issued by the Board (presumably referring to the CBDT) cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments, having financial implications, must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The Court reiterated that authorities cannot exercise powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act to usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. The Court found that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act and the subsequent proceedings, particularly those conducted without adhering to the faceless assessment scheme under Section 144B, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the notices dated 27.03.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and the order dated 30.03.2023 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, if so advised. The interim orders were merged with the final order.
The High Court held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings initiated thereafter, including those under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and were therefore set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court relied on the decision of a coordinate bench in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, which held that circulars or instructions from the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. The Court emphasized that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. It was further held that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Consequently, the notices dated February 28, 2023, March 16, 2023, March 20, 2023, March 30, 2023, and the order dated March 20, 2024, were set aside. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The writ petitions were allowed, and interim orders stood merged with the present order.
The High Court held that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. The Court reiterated its view from previous judgments that instructions issued under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as powers under Section 144B (7 & 8), cannot allow authorities to usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. The Court found that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the notices dated February 28, 2023, March 16, 2023, March 20, 2023, March 30, 2023, and April 30, 2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised.
The High Court held that instructions issued by the Board, including those related to faceless assessments, cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose or obsolete. The Court affirmed the view taken by a Coordinate Bench that legislative enactments must be followed mandatorily. The Court found that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), revenue authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the subsequent faceless assessment proceedings initiated without conducting personal hearings, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court set aside the impugned notice dated March 14, 2024, and all consequential proceedings for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, if so advised. The writ petition was allowed, and interim orders were merged with the final order.
The High Court, in agreement with its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, held that instructions or circulars issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions. The Court found that the notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent faceless assessment proceedings initiated under Section 144B were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, these notices and proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that legislative enactments have financial implications and must be followed mandatorily, and that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their own satisfaction or convenience. The Court also noted that such actions can cause hardship and confusion to taxpayers. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if so advised. All interim orders were merged with the present order.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting the assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, are contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others. The reasoning was that administrative instructions or circulars issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. The authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their own convenience or satisfaction, causing hardship and confusion to taxpayers. Instructions can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Consequently, the notices dated February 28, 2023, March 20, 2023, March 23, 2023, March 28, 2023, March 30, 2023, and the order dated March 30, 2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised. The writ petition was allowed, and the interim order stood merged with the final order.
The High Court held that instructions issued by the Joint Assessment Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent faceless assessment proceedings, as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench, stating that circulars or instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The authorities cannot exercise powers to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship to assessees. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with the order dated 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, if so advised. The interim orders were to merge with the final order.
The High Court held that instructions issued by the Board, including those related to faceless assessments, cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments, especially those with financial implications, must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The Court reiterated that powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B(7 & 8), cannot be exercised in a manner that usurps legal provisions for the convenience of authorities or causes hardship and confusion to assessees. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench that circulars and instructions can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, dated 31.08.2024, and consequential proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as per Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the Act and were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised.
The High Court allowed the Revenue's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that Circular No. 9/2024, effective from 17.09.2024, revised the monetary limits for filing appeals before the ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court. The revised limit for appeals before the High Court was Rs. 2 crore. The Revenue contended that the present appeal did not fall within the exception clauses of Circular No. 5/2024 and therefore, should be withdrawn. The Court found merit in the Revenue's submission and permitted the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications were also disposed of as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that Circular No. 9/2024, effective from September 17, 2024, revised the monetary limits for filing appeals by the department before the ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court. The Court also referred to Circular No. 5/2024. The Revenue submitted that the present case does not fall within the exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024 and, in view of the revised monetary limits under Circular No. 9/2024, prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. The Tribunal accepted this submission and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. All pending applications were also dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the Revenue's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, dated 17.09.2024, revised the monetary limits for filing appeals, with the enhanced limits becoming effective from the date of issuance. The Court acknowledged the Revenue's submission that the present appeal, in light of these revised limits, did not fall within the exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024. Consequently, the Court permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. All pending applications were also dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was to allow the withdrawal and dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the monetary limits for filing appeals, as revised by Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, are applicable to all cases under the Income-tax Act, 1961, including those relating to TDS/TCS, with exceptions as per paras 3.1 and 3.2 of Circular No. 5/2024. The Tribunal noted that the modifications came into effect from the date of issuance of Circular No. 9/2024, i.e., 17.09.2024, and shall apply to appeals to be filed before the Supreme Court, High Court, and Tribunal, and also apply to appeals pending before these authorities. Since the Revenue contended that the present case does not fall within the exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024, the Tribunal allowed the prayer for withdrawal. The operative direction was to allow the withdrawal of the appeal and dismiss it as withdrawn.
The High Court found that the ITAT had examined the grounds and confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals). The ITAT's factual findings were based on the assessment that there were more than five units and a single tenant could hire two distinct units from the same owner. The claim had been allowed for AY 2006-07 to 2009-10 and not disputed. For AY 2010-11 and 2012-13, the ITAT confirmed the CIT(Appeals)'s order. Given the concurrent factual findings of the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT, the High Court found no substantial question of law requiring examination. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that Circular No. 9/2024, effective from 17.09.2024, has revised the monetary limits for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 2 crore. The Court observed that the present case does not fall within the exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024. Consequently, the Revenue's prayer for withdrawal was granted. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications were also disposed of as withdrawn. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal.
The High Court allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that Circular No. 9/2024, effective from 17.09.2024, revised the monetary limits for filing appeals before the ITAT (Rs. 60 lakh), High Court (Rs. 2 crore), and Supreme Court (Rs. 5 crore). The revenue argued that the present case did not fall within the exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024 and therefore, the appeal should be withdrawn. The Court accepted this submission and allowed the withdrawal. Consequently, all pending applications were also dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the original appeal was made.
The High Court held that the monetary limits for filing appeals, as revised by Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, are applicable to all cases, including those relating to TDS/TCS under the Income-tax Act, 1961, with exceptions as per paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of Circular No. 5/2024. The court noted that the modifications came into effect from 17.09.2024 and apply to appeals to be filed before the ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court, as well as appeals pending before these authorities. The court found that the present appeal, filed after the issuance of the circular, does not fall within the exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024. Consequently, the Revenue's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal was allowed. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the Revenue's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that Circular No. 9/2024, dated 17.09.2024, had revised the monetary limits for filing appeals before the ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court. The revised limit for appeals before the High Court was Rs. 2 crore. The Court observed that the Revenue submitted that the present case did not fall within the exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024, which allows appeals to be decided on merits irrespective of the tax effect. Consequently, based on the revised monetary limits and the fact that the case did not fall under the exception, the Court permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. All pending applications were also dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court, following its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh (supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra), held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. The Court found that the authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Consequently, the Court held that notices issued by the Joint Administrative Officer under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the subsequent faceless assessment proceedings conducted under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The Tribunal held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Therefore, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, notices dated 28.02.2023, 20.03.2024, 16.03.2023, and 30.03.2023, along with consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The writ petition was allowed, and interim orders were merged with the final order.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 144B of the Act, were contrary to the provisions of the Act and therefore set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court agreed with the view taken by coordinate benches, stating that instructions or circulars by the Board cannot override statutory provisions. Legislative enactments must be followed mandatorily. The Court found that exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), should not allow authorities to usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars are meant for supplementing statutory provisions and for their implementation. Consequently, the notices dated February 28, 2023, March 16, 2023, March 20, 2024, March 30, 2023, and the order dated March 30, 2023, were set aside. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, if advised. The interim order passed by the Court was merged with the final order.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that by exercising powers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Therefore, the Court agreed with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly. The writ petition was allowed, and the interim order stood merged with the present order.
The High Court held that instructions issued by the Board under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B(7 & 8), cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Therefore, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, notices dated 28.02.2023, 20.03.2024, 16.03.2023, and 30.03.2023, and the notice dated 28.02.2024 (P-1) under Section 148A(d) and notice dated 28.02.2024 (P-2) under Section 148, along with consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly. All pending applications were disposed of.
The High Court allowed the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The court noted that the case did not fall within the exceptions to the circular regarding withdrawal.
The High Court allowed the prayer of the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning was based on the amended monetary limits for filing appeals introduced by Circular No. 9/2024, which amended Circular No. 5/2024. The court noted that these revised limits, which set a threshold of Rs. 2 crore for appeals before the High Court, were applicable to all cases, including the present one, as it did not fall under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications associated with the appeal were also dismissed as withdrawn. The judgment does not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the revised monetary limits and the fact that the case did not fall under any exceptions.
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that Circular No. 9/2024, effective from September 17, 2024, revised the monetary limits for filing appeals before the ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court. The Revenue submitted that the present case did not fall within the exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024 and therefore, the appeal should be withdrawn. The Court found merit in this submission and allowed the prayer for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, and all pending applications were also disposed of as withdrawn. The principle established is that appeals can be withdrawn by the Revenue if they no longer meet the enhanced monetary limits prescribed by subsequent circulars, provided they do not fall under any specific exceptions.
The High Court has allowed the applications filed for the disposal of the appeal in terms of Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Consequently, the appeal bearing number ITA-179-2023 has been dismissed as withdrawn. The Court has also vacated all interim orders and disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications accordingly. The reasoning is based on the acceptance of the applications for withdrawal as per the aforementioned circular. No specific findings on the merits of the original dispute are recorded, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural basis. The ratio decidendi is that appeals can be dismissed as withdrawn when parties seek to do so in accordance with a CBDT circular.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The revenue's counsel informed the Court that the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated by CBDT Circulars, and therefore, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The revenue further prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted it. The Court granted this liberty. The reasoning for the dismissal is solely based on the revenue's decision to withdraw the appeal due to the low tax effect as per the CBDT circulars. The merits of the original appeal were not considered. Any pending applications related to the main appeal were also disposed of.
The High Court decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning provided is that the appellant-revenue's counsel stated that the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No. 3 of 2018, further amended by Circular No. 17 of 2019, read with a subsequent letter dated 20.08.2019. Consequently, the counsel 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. Since the main case was dismissed, any pending C.M. Application also stood disposed of.
The High Court allowed the Revenue's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that Circular No. 9/2024, dated 17.09.2024, revised the monetary limits for filing appeals by the department before the ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court. The revised limit for appeals before the High Court was Rs. 2 crore. The Court was informed that these modifications came into effect from the date of issuance of the circular and shall apply to appeals to be filed before the High Court. The Revenue contended that the present appeal, filed in 2019, did not fall within the exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024. Consequently, the Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. All pending applications were also dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, in this case the High Court acting as an appellate authority, allowed the Revenue's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The reasoning was based on the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, dated September 17, 2024, which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals. The Court noted that the modifications came into effect from September 17, 2024, and were applicable to appeals to be filed before the High Court. Since the Revenue contended that the present case did not fall within the exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024 and prayed for withdrawal, the Court found it appropriate to allow the prayer. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications were also disposed of as withdrawn. The operative direction was the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular aimed to manage litigation by revising monetary limits for appeals. Since the appeal fell within the exception clause of the circular, it was allowed to be withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the prayer of the counsel for the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning was based on the amended monetary limits for filing appeals as per Circular No. 9/2024. The circular, effective from 17.09.2024, revises the monetary limits for appeals before the ITAT (Rs. 60 lakh), High Court (Rs. 2 crore), and Supreme Court (Rs. 5 crore). The court noted that the case did not fall within any exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications were also dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted the submission of the Revenue's counsel regarding Circular No. 9/2024, which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals by the department before the ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court. The revised limits are Rs. 60 lakh for ITAT, Rs. 2 crore for High Court, and Rs. 5 crore for Supreme Court, effective from 17.09.2024. The Court accepted the Revenue's contention that the present appeal, in light of these enhanced limits and the fact that it does not fall within the exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024, should be withdrawn. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications were also disposed of as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that Circular No. 9/2024, effective from 17.09.2024, has revised the monetary limits for filing appeals before the ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court. It was observed that these revised limits apply to appeals to be filed after the issuance date and also to pending appeals before the Supreme Court, High Court, and Tribunal, with directions for withdrawal. The Tribunal found that the present case does not fall within the exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. All pending applications were also dismissed as withdrawn. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the prayer of the appellant's counsel. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The court noted that the Revenue's counsel submitted that in terms of Circular No. 9/2024, the monetary limits for filing appeals have been enhanced. The revised limit for appeals before the High Court is Rs. 2 crore. The Revenue contended that the present case does not fall within the exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024 and therefore, prayed for withdrawal. The court found merit in this submission and accordingly, allowed the prayer for withdrawal. All pending applications were also dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was to withdraw the appeal.
The High Court allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The court noted that the monetary limits for filing appeals before the High Court were enhanced to Rs. 2 crore, effective from 17.09.2024, as per Circular No. 9/2024. The court observed that the present appeal was filed after this date and did not fall under any exception that would require it to be decided on merits irrespective of the monetary limit. Consequently, the court permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as prayed by the Revenue. All pending applications were also dismissed as withdrawn. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the Revenue before the High Court, after the effective date of Circular No. 9/2024, are subject to the revised monetary limits, and if the tax effect is below the enhanced limit, withdrawal can be permitted.