Loading High Court cases…
474 orders · Page 10 of 10
The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same issue, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning was based on the lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, in view of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which designated the NFAC with exclusive power. The ratio decidendi is that notices issued under Section 148 by authorities other than the NFAC, post the CBDT circular, are without jurisdiction. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the aforementioned judgments, with liberty to the revenue to proceed as advised after following the correct procedure.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cited cases, a Co-ordinate Bench of the Court had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which designated the NFAC with exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices. The operative direction in the cited cases, and thus in this case, was to grant liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. No specific issue was left undecided.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. These prior judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by the co-ordinate benches in the cited cases, which addressed the jurisdictional issue concerning the issuance of Section 148 notices in light of the relevant CBDT circular. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with these precedents, implying that the impugned notice was likely vitiated by lack of jurisdiction as argued by the petitioner.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cited cases, a Co-ordinate Bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The reasoning was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. The principle established is that notices under Section 148A must be issued by the designated authority as per the applicable circulars. The operative direction was to grant liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments passed in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on July 19, 2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on July 29, 2024). In those referred cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar issues, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by the co-ordinate benches of the High Court. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with these earlier judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and allowing the revenue to re-initiate the process if permissible under law. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the impugned orders. The Court found that the action of the respondents (Revenue) was not tenable as it was not based on substantial evidence. The judgment refers to a larger pronouncement by the Apex Court concerning the interpretation of 'solely' in educational institutions and the conditions for approval under Section 10(23C) and Section 11(4A). It clarifies that profits incidentally generated in the course of providing education are permissible, and the 'solely' requirement means all objects must relate to education. The Court also held that authorities can examine accounts to ascertain genuineness. However, in this specific case, the Court found the Revenue's action lacked substantial evidence. The judgment of the High Court operates prospectively, and the appeals were dismissed without costs. The petitioner's claim for approval/registration would be considered in light of subsequent events via fresh applications.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) submitted that the tax effect in the appeal was only Rs. 2,847/- and that they had instructions to withdraw the appeal in view of Circular No. 9 of 2024 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The pending applications, if any, were also disposed of as such. The specific findings of the ITAT on the merits of the case are not discussed as the appeal was withdrawn by the Revenue.
The High Court held that both the appellant (Revenue) and the respondent (Assessee) were ad idem (in agreement) that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than Rs. 2 Crore. In light of this agreement and the prevailing Circulars No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 and Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024, which stipulate conditions for filing and pursuing appeals based on tax effect, the Court ordered that the appeal be disposed of as not pressed. The reasoning is based on the parties' consensus and the administrative instructions issued by the CBDT. The operative direction is that the appeal is disposed of as not pressed, implying no decision on the merits of the case.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the writ petition in default. The Court noted that this was the second consecutive occasion where no one appeared for the petitioner. The Court also mentioned that the petitioner had been duly informed about the listing of the matter through a previous order dated 10.04.2026, which was a remand by the Supreme Court. An amendment application had been filed to include a challenge to the vires of Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the petitioner was absent, the Court proceeded to dismiss the petition. No decision was made on the merits of the challenge to Section 147A.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. The reasoning was based on the established precedent set by a Co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court, which had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The Court followed the principle that if a CBDT circular specifies that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148, then any notice issued by an authority other than the NFAC would be without jurisdiction. The operative direction was to grant liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of previous judgments by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same issue, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the established precedent that the NFAC has exclusive jurisdiction for issuing such notices as per the relevant circular. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the cited judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and order, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments passed in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). These prior judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, finding that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. Consequently, the impugned notice and order were set aside. The court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. No specific amount was in dispute, and no issue was left undecided.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India (decided on 29.07.2024). These prior judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which was not disputed by the revenue. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the cited precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and order, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). These prior judgments had allowed writ petitions on similar issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention regarding the jurisdictional issue arising from the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which was not disputed by the revenue. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedent, implying the notice was quashed but allowing the revenue to re-issue it following the correct procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the petition in terms of the consent of the parties. The court found that both the petitioner and the respondents agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as had been granted in a previous judgment of the High Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. Following this consensus, the court quashed the impugned notice dated 27.07.2022 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that where parties consent to follow a previous binding precedent of the same court, the court will grant the same relief to the petitioner.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). The reasoning was that a Co-ordinate Bench of the same Court had previously allowed writ petitions on the identical issue raised by the petitioner. In those prior cases, liberty was granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The operative direction was to dispose of the present writ petition in line with these precedents. The Court noted that the revenue did not dispute the petitioner's submissions.
The High Court noted that the Revenue's counsel had instructions to withdraw the appeal. This instruction was based on a circular issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, which stipulated that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 2 crores should be withdrawn. Consequently, the High Court found no impediment to allowing the withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal itself was withdrawn before any substantive decision on its merits.
The High Court noted that due to the CIRP and the subsequent approval of a resolution plan, nothing substantive remained in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of as infructuous.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh held that the present writ petition was covered by the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same issue raised in the present petition. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited precedents, implying the quashing of the notices and allowing the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they chose to follow the correct procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court did not decide the substantive merits of the appeal. Instead, based on the submissions of both parties, the Court ordered the petition to be disposed of as not pressed. The respondent's counsel indicated that a recent circular rendered the appeal infructuous, and the appellant's counsel agreed to its disposal on this basis. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to move a miscellaneous application for restoration of the appeal if any cause of action, interest, or dispute still survived. No finding was reached on any specific tax-related issue, and the operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court, acknowledging the submissions of both parties, ordered the disposal of the appeal as not pressed. The reasoning was based on the representation made by the assessee's counsel regarding the impact of a subsequent circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which rendered the appeal infructuous. The revenue's counsel concurred with this course of action. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal accordingly. The court also granted the appellant liberty to move a miscellaneous application for restoration if any cause of action, interest, or dispute still survived. No specific findings on the merits of the original dispute were made, and no ratio decidendi was established for future reference.
The High Court disposed of the appeal as not pressed, based on the submissions made by both parties. The respondent's counsel indicated that a recent circular rendered the appeal infructuous. The appellant's counsel conceded to the disposal of the petition. The court ordered accordingly. However, the appellant was granted liberty to move a miscellaneous application for restoration of the appeal if any cause of action, interest, or dispute still survived. No substantive issues were adjudicated upon, and therefore, no ratio decidendi was established.
The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeals and deemed the cross-objections to have been withdrawn as well. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.