Loading High Court cases…
477 orders · Page 8 of 10
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in light of the consensus between the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the petition. The court quashed the impugned notice dated 30.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement that the petitioner would receive the same relief as granted in the High Court's judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to follow a precedent, the court will grant similar relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court held that the issue was squarely covered by its previous decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. In those cases, the Court had examined the impact of faceless assessment provisions on the issuance of Section 148 notices. The Co-ordinate Bench had previously quashed notices issued by the JAO and allowed the assessees' petitions. The High Court reiterated this position, finding that notices under Section 148 of the 1961 Act cannot be issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after the introduction of faceless assessment. The ratio decidendi is that the procedural changes brought about by faceless assessment mandate that such notices must be issued in accordance with the prescribed procedure, which excludes issuance by the JAO in this context. Consequently, the petition was disposed of in terms of the earlier judgments, with liberty to the Revenue to follow the correct procedure.
The High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others (CWP No.15791 of 2024), decided on 10.09.2026. Based on this consensus, the Court allowed the petition. The impugned notice dated 26.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings, if any, were quashed. The reasoning is based on the agreement between the parties to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to a specific relief based on a prior judgment of the same court, that relief should be granted. No issue was expressly left undecided. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court held that the issue was squarely covered by previous judgments of its Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. In those cases, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 were quashed, and the petitions were allowed. The reasoning was that post-introduction of faceless assessment under Section 151A read with Section 144B, the JAO lacks the authority to issue such notices. The ratio decidendi is that the procedural changes brought about by faceless assessment mandate that notices under Section 148 cannot be issued by the JAO. The Court disposed of the present petition in terms of the aforementioned judgments, quashing the notice and consequential proceedings, with liberty to the Revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.
The Tribunal noted that the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) submitted that the tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 2 crores. Based on this submission, the counsel had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with Circular No. 9 of 2024 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case.
The High Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Based on this consensus, the petition was allowed. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 17.04.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning is based on the agreement of the parties and the application of the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to parity with a previous judgment, the same relief should be granted. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court allowed the application filed by the assessee. The Court noted that the assessee had approached the competent authority under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, for an amicable resolution of the dispute. The Revenue's counsel had no objection to this application. Consequently, on the oral request made by the counsel for both parties, the main appeal was taken on board and disposed of as prayed for in the application. The specific outcome of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution was not detailed, nor was the original dispute's merit decided by the High Court. The operative direction was the disposal of the appeal.
The High Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). The Court allowed the petition in terms of the Jyoti Sareen case. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 24.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, was quashed. The reasoning for this decision was the consensus reached between the learned counsel for the parties. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to extend the benefit of a prior judgment to a subsequent case, the court will grant such relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court allowed the application for disposal of the appeal. The Court noted that the respondent-assessee had prayed for the disposal of the appeal because they had approached the competent authority under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, for amicable resolution of the dispute. The learned counsel for the non-applicant/appellant (Revenue) submitted that he had no objection if the application was allowed. Consequently, on the oral request of the parties' counsel, the hearing of the appeal was preponed, and for the reasons set out in the application, which were supported by an affidavit, the application was allowed. The appeal was disposed of as prayed for. The principle derived is that appeals can be disposed of if parties agree to resolve disputes under a settlement scheme like Vivad Se Vishwas.
The High Court allowed the application filed by the respondent-assessee. The Court noted that the assessee had approached the competent authority under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, for an amicable resolution of the dispute. The Revenue's counsel indicated no objection to this application. Consequently, on the oral request of the parties' counsel, the hearing of the appeal was preponed. The Court allowed the application and disposed of the appeal as prayed for by the assessee. The specific dispute or the amount in contention was not detailed in the judgment, nor were any substantive legal issues decided on merits. The appeal was disposed of based on the settlement proceedings initiated by the assessee under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
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 similar grounds, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act if advised. The reasoning implicitly accepts the petitioner's argument regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the issuing officer based on the CBDT circular. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in line with the cited precedents, which involved quashing the notices and allowing the revenue to proceed afresh if they choose to do so following the correct procedure.
The High Court allowed the petition in terms of the judgment passed in Jyoti Sareen's case dated 10.09.2026. Consequently, the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the consensus reached between the parties that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior binding precedent, the court will grant that relief. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court, upon considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the Revenue, ordered that the appeal be disposed of as not pressed. The reasoning provided is that the tax effect in the present appeal is less than Rs. 2 Crore and the matter is not covered under any exceptions, as per Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, read with Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024. The operative direction is to dispose of the appeal as not pressed. 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) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The principle derived is that if a notice under Section 148 is issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction as per relevant circulars, it is liable to be quashed, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the cited precedents.
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 Coordinate Bench 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 that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT's notification assigning exclusive power to the NFAC for issuing Section 148 notices. The ratio decidendi is that if a notice under Section 148 is issued by an authority without the requisite jurisdiction as per prevailing CBDT circulars, such a notice is liable to be quashed, with liberty to the revenue to initiate proceedings afresh following the correct procedure. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited precedents.
The Tribunal noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax) that he had specific instructions to withdraw the appeal. The reason cited for withdrawal was that the tax effect in the matter was only Rs. 2,78,633/-. A list of cases received by the appellant-department was also taken on record, subject to just exceptions. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn, along with any pending applications. No decision was made on the merits of the ITAT's order dated January 22, 2020.
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. 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 that the issue raised by the petitioner was covered by these co-ordinate bench decisions. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with these precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice but allowing the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings if they followed the correct procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the issue raised by the petitioner was covered by previous judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. In those cases, similar writ petitions were allowed, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the cited precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and allowing the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings if they chose to do so following the correct procedure.
The High Court held that the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on July 19, 2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on July 29, 2024). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same issue, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning is based on the precedent set by the Co-ordinate Bench on the identical issue concerning the jurisdiction for issuing Section 148 notices. The operative direction is to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the aforementioned judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and proceedings, subject to the revenue's right to re-initiate if the proper procedure is followed.
The High Court held that the present appeal was liable to be dismissed. The Court noted that the PCIT's order dated 27.03.2023, remanding the case back to the AO, was challenged before the ITAT. The ITAT, vide its order dated 28.06.2024, dismissed the assessee's appeal and did not interfere with the PCIT's order passed under Section 263. The Court further observed that in implementation of the PCIT's order, the AO passed a fresh order on 18.02.2024, which was pending consideration. Since the ITAT had already upheld the PCIT's remand order, and the subsequent order passed by the AO was pending, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the ITAT's decision. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the judgments passed 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 similar issues, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The High Court noted that the petitioner's issue was covered by these precedents and the revenue did not dispute this. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in line with these earlier judgments.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of its previous judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case, both decided on July 19, 2024, and July 29, 2024, respectively. In those cases, the Court had allowed similar writ petitions 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 established precedent of co-ordinate benches dealing with the jurisdictional issue arising from the CBDT circular concerning the NFAC's exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential proceedings, with a liberty to the revenue to re-initiate the process correctly.
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. 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 argument that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which was not disputed by the revenue. The ratio decidendi is that if a Section 148 notice is issued by an authority without the requisite jurisdiction as per prevailing circulars, such a notice can be quashed, with liberty to the revenue to issue a fresh notice following the correct procedure. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the cited precedents.
The High Court held that the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024), decided on July 19, 2024, and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023), decided on July 29, 2024. 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 as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The operative direction is that the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and order, with liberty to the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings if advised, following the correct procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court noted that the issue raised by the petitioner was covered by previous 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, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act if they so advised. Since the present case involved a pending appeal before the Appellate Authority, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction was to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal based on the precedent, effectively remanding the decision-making process to the appellate level for adjudication in line with the High Court's prior rulings.
The tribunal noted the appellant's intention to pursue their remedy before the ITAT. Consequently, the appeals before the High Court were dismissed as withdrawn.
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). In those cited cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so 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 purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148. The revenue did not contest this position. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in line with the precedents, implying that the impugned notice and order were set aside, subject to the revenue's right to initiate fresh proceedings following the correct procedure.
The High Court held that both the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) and the respondent (Assessee) were in agreement (ad idem) that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than Rs.2 Crore. In light of Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, read with Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024, which likely stipulate conditions for the Revenue to withdraw or not press appeals based on tax effect, the Court ordered the appeal to be dismissed as not pressed. The reasoning is solely based on the parties' consensus and the applicability of the aforementioned circulars. No specific findings on the merits of the original ITAT order were made, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground based on the tax effect and departmental circulars.
The High Court held that the appeal had become infructuous. This decision was based on the joint submission of both the appellant (revenue) and the respondent (assessee) that the assessee had approached the Competent Authority under the "Director Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024" to settle the dispute. As a result, nothing substantive remained for adjudication in the appeal. The Court allowed the miscellaneous application and disposed of the appeal as having been rendered infructuous. The judgment also noted that the appellant would be at liberty to move an appropriate application for restoration and decision on merits if any dispute, cause of action, or interest still survived.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh held that as both the appellant (revenue) and the respondent (assessee) were ad idem (in agreement) that the assessee had approached the Competent Authority under "The Director Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024" to settle the dispute, nothing substantive survived in the present appeal. Consequently, the Court found the appeal to have been rendered infructuous. The Court allowed CM-2219-CII-2025 and disposed of the appeal. The operative direction was that the appeal was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. The Court also granted liberty to the appellant to move an appropriate application for restoration and decision on merits in the event any dispute, cause of action, or interest still survived.
The High Court noted the submission made by the counsel for the respondent-assessee that the tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 2 crores. This position was not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue. Consequently, the Court acknowledged that in the wake of the circular dated September 17, 2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBDT, the appeal would no longer be maintainable. The Court accepted the Revenue's fair submission that the appeal be disposed of as such. Therefore, the appeal was taken on board and disposed of as not pressed. No decision on the merits of the ITAT's order was rendered.
The High Court, in the wake of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent-Revenue, set aside the order dated September 24, 2021. The Court remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer, Amritsar, to re-examine the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The reasoning was based on the respondent's concession that the petitioner was not afforded due and adequate opportunity, rendering the order indefensible. The ratio decidendi is that an assessment order passed without providing a fair hearing to the assessee is liable to be set aside and remitted for fresh consideration. The operative direction is the setting aside of the impugned order and remand for fresh assessment.
The High Court set aside the impugned order dated June 12, 2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order. This decision was made in light of the position sketched out by the appellant, particularly the subsequent ITAT order dated February 3, 2017, which had allowed the exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) for the subsequent assessment year 2004-05 and had attained finality. The revenue's counsel also conceded to this course of action, agreeing that a re-examination was necessary. The High Court noted that the appeal for assessment year 2004-05 had already been disposed of as infructuous due to the favorable ITAT order. The principle here is that a consistent favorable ruling for a subsequent period, especially when it attains finality, can warrant a re-examination of the same issue for an earlier period, particularly when conceded by the revenue. The specific issues raised by the appellant were not decided on merits by the High Court, as the matter was remitted.
The High Court, upon considering the application for withdrawal which was duly supported by an affidavit, allowed the same. Consequently, as prayed for by the applicant-appellant, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original appeal. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. The appellant's counsel, on instructions from the Department and in view of CBDT Circular No.9 of 2024 which sets monetary limits for filing appeals, submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal is below the prescribed threshold. Consequently, the appellant sought to withdraw the appeal. The Court accepted this submission and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the original appeal. Pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court observed that the writ petition appeared to be an abuse of the judicial process. Following this observation, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition. The Court granted this request and dismissed the petition as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the case was made. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the appeal was virtually rendered infructuous. This was based on the submission by the Revenue that it would be bound by the resolution plan approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Court noted that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process had been initiated against the respondent, and a resolution plan had been approved by the NCLT and confirmed by the NCLAT. While the appeal was disposed of as infructuous, the Court granted liberty to the appellant (Revenue) to file an appropriate application if required, pursuant to any decision in Civil Appeal No.1808/2020 and other related appeals pending before the Supreme Court concerning the resolution plan. No specific issue was left undecided; rather, the appeal was disposed of on the basis of the subsequent events related to the insolvency proceedings.
The High Court noted the submission by the appellant (Revenue) that it would be bound by the resolution plan approved under Section 31 of the IBC, 2016, which rendered the present appeal virtually infructuous. However, the appellant also pointed out that certain civil appeals related to the resolution plan were pending before the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal as infructuous. It granted liberty to the appellant to file an appropriate application, if required, pursuant to any decision made by the Supreme Court in the pending appeals concerning the resolution plan. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of based on the changed circumstances due to the IBC proceedings.
The High Court noted that the revenue had pointed out the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's counsel, after arguing the matter, sought permission to withdraw the petition to enable the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section 246A. The Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents stated that any such appeal filed by the petitioner would be taken cognizance of and dealt with in accordance with law expeditiously. Consequently, in light of the submissions made by both parties and the availability of the statutory remedy, the petition was disposed of as withdrawn. The court did not decide on the merits of the original challenge.
The High Court noted the submission by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the orders being assailed. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that he be permitted to withdraw the petition to enable the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents stated that any such appeal filed by the petitioner would be taken cognizance of and dealt with in accordance with law, and necessary orders would be passed expeditiously. In light of these submissions, the petition was disposed of.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the issue raised by the petitioner was identical to the issues decided in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh by a Co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed, and the revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. Following these precedents, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited cases, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and order, with liberty to the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings if permissible under the law.
The Tribunal noted that the learned counsel for the appellant (revenue) submitted that as the tax effect was only Rs. 1,20,59,049/-, he had instructions to withdraw the appeal in view of Circular No. 9 of 2024 dated September 17, 2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBDT, Government of India. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the original dispute was made. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of as a consequence.