Loading High Court cases…
465 orders · Page 5 of 10
The High Court held that the appeal, with a tax effect less than Rs. 20 lac, deserved to be dismissed as not pressed, in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, were left open to be examined in future proceedings. The Revenue was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions mentioned in the Circular. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as not pressed, with liberty granted to the appellant to revive the appeal in case of difficulty.
The High Court held that the appeal is dismissed as not pressed, in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Court observed that the tax effect in the instant case was less than Rs. 20 lac, which is the monetary limit prescribed for filing appeals before the High Courts. The Circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals. However, the Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, are left open to be examined in future proceedings. The Revenue was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal falls under any of the exceptions specified in the Circular dated 10.12.2015, or if they face difficulty. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as not pressed, with liberty to revive.
The High Court held that the appeal is dismissed as not pressed. The court reasoned that the tax effect in the instant case was indisputably less than Rs. 20 lac, which is the prescribed limit for filing appeals before the High Courts as per CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015. The court acknowledged that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, are left open to be examined in future appropriate proceedings. The court also clarified that if the appeal falls under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular, the Revenue is at liberty to move an application for recalling the order. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the Revenue before the High Court, where the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit in the relevant CBDT circular, should be dismissed as not pressed, unless they fall under specific exceptions.
The High Court held that the appeals are to be dismissed as not pressed, in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The Court noted that the tax effect in the instant case was less than Rs. 20 lac, which is the monetary limit prescribed for filing appeals before the High Courts. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeals, if any, are left open to be examined in an appropriate proceeding in the future. The Revenue was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal falls under any of the exceptions mentioned in the Circular dated 10.12.2015. The Court also stated that it will be open for the appellant to revive the appeals in case of difficulty. The operative direction is dismissal of the appeals as not pressed.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose in the present appeal. This conclusion was based on previous judgments of the same court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 280/2016 and D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 143/2009, which in turn relied on a Supreme Court decision dated 05.12.2016. The Supreme Court had held that income earned by a former ruler from the requisition of property is not taxable. Consequently, the High Court found that the issues concerning the taxability of income derived by the assessee were rendered academic, as the income was not taxable. Therefore, examining the other questions would serve no fruitful purpose. The appeal was dismissed on this basis.
The High Court held that the appeal deserved to be dismissed as not pressed, taking note of CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 and the fact that the tax effect was less than Rs. 20 lac, which is the prescribed limit for filing appeals before the High Courts. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, were left open to be examined in an appropriate proceeding in the future. The Court also observed that if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions specified in the Circular dated 10.12.2015, the Revenue would be at liberty to move an application for recalling the order. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as not pressed.
The High Court held that the instant appeal, with a tax effect less than Rs. 20 lac, deserved to be dismissed as not pressed, in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The court clarified that substantial questions of law, if any, raised in the appeal were left open to be examined in future proceedings. The court also observed that if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular (e.g., constitutional validity, Board's order held illegal, revenue audit objection accepted, or undisclosed foreign assets/bank accounts), the Revenue would be at liberty to move an application for recalling the order. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to revive in case of difficulty.
The High Court held that the instant appeal, with a tax effect indisputably less than Rs. 20 lac (the prescribed limit for filing appeals before the High Court), deserves to be dismissed as not pressed, in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, are left open to be examined in an appropriate proceeding in the future. Furthermore, the Revenue was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal falls within any of the exceptions specified in the Circular dated 10.12.2015. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as not pressed, with the appellant being at liberty to revive the appeal in case of difficulty.
The High Court held that the instant appeal, with a tax effect indisputably less than Rs. 20 lakhs (the monetary limit prescribed for filing appeals before High Courts in CBDT Circular No. 21/2015), deserves to be dismissed as not pressed. The Court noted that the circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals. While dismissing the appeal, the Court clarified that any substantial questions of law raised in the appeal are left open to be examined in future appropriate proceedings. The Revenue was also granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal falls under any of the exceptions mentioned in the Circular dated 10/12/2015. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as not pressed.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was liable to be dismissed as not pressed, taking into account CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and the fact that the tax effect was less than Rs. 20 lakhs, which is the prescribed limit for filing appeals before the High Courts. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, were left open to be examined in future appropriate proceedings. The Revenue was also granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions specified in the Circular dated 10.12.2015. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as not pressed.
The High Court held that the instant appeal, filed by the Revenue, was directed against an order of the ITAT and the tax effect was indisputably less than Rs. 20 lac. In light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 20 lac for filing appeals before the High Court and applies retrospectively to pending appeals, the appeal deserved to be dismissed as not pressed. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, were left open to be examined in future appropriate proceedings. The Revenue was also granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions specified in the Circular. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The High Court held that the appeal is to be dismissed as not pressed, taking note of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and the fact that the tax effect in the instant case is less than Rs. 20 lac, which is the prescribed limit for filing appeals before the High Courts. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, are left open to be examined in an appropriate proceeding in the future. The Revenue was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal falls under any of the exceptions specified in the Circular dated 10.12.2015. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as not pressed.
The High Court held that the view taken by the Tribunal was just and proper and no case for interference was made out. The judgment specifically addresses the disallowance made by the AO under Section 40A(2)(b) regarding the payment to the sister concern. The assessee's argument that M/s. Autolite (India) Ltd. was a listed company and not a sister concern, and that the AO had not established the expenditure as excessive or unreasonable, was implicitly accepted by the High Court in upholding the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal had deleted the disallowance made by the AO. The judgment does not explicitly detail the reasoning for the Tribunal's decision on the first issue concerning export proceeds, but it states that the Tribunal had partly allowed the assessee's appeal, implying a favorable outcome for the assessee on that point as well. The issue regarding export proceeds was framed as a substantial question of law by the High Court. The operative direction was that the appeal stands dismissed.
The High Court held that the instant appeal, with a tax effect indisputably less than Rs. 20 lac, deserved to be dismissed as not pressed, in light of CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, were left open to be examined in an appropriate proceeding in the future. It was also observed that if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions mentioned in the Circular dated 10.12.2015, the Revenue would be at liberty to move an application for recalling the order. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as not pressed, with the appellant being at liberty to revive the appeal in case of difficulty.
The High Court held that the interest income arising from investments made by the cooperative banks, including those made from funds other than reserve funds, voluntary investments, and loans advanced to employees, are all part of their banking activities and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court reasoned that the phrase 'carrying on the business of banking' is wide and includes investing funds deposited by members and ensuring that reserve funds do not remain idle, which is prudent business management and part of banking activity. The Court relied on its interpretation in the case of Rajasthan State Cooperative Bank and numerous other Supreme Court decisions, including CIT v. Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank, Mehsana District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., and CIT v. Naioanshahar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Court found that the investments were directly attributable to the business of banking. Consequently, all issues were answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. The appeals were dismissed.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than Rs. 20 lac, which was the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated December 10, 2015. The Court noted that the circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, were left open to be examined in future appropriate proceedings. The Revenue was also granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular.
The High Court reversed the order of the Tribunal and confirmed the view of the CIT(A). The Court held that the father and son are different assessees, and if the father was not penalized for a similar transaction, there was no ground to take a different view in the case of the son. The Court found force in the assessee's arguments, particularly noting that the donors had paid gift tax on the gifts given to the appellant, and the appellant had also paid tax on such gifts. Furthermore, in similar cases within the appellant's group, revised returns had been accepted. The Court also observed that the Tribunal had not given cogent reasons for reversing the CIT(A)'s order and had not provided findings on the issues raised. The Court noted that the AO had erroneously increased the penalty when the Department was not in appeal against the CIT(A)'s earlier order. The issue was accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. The appeal was allowed.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable before it, as the tax effect was less than Rs. 20 lac, which was the monetary limit prescribed for filing appeals before the High Court in CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Court noted that the circular applied retrospectively to pending appeals. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as 'not pressed'. The Court clarified that any substantial questions of law raised in the appeal were left open to be examined in future appropriate proceedings. It also stated that if the appeal fell under any exceptions mentioned in the circular, the Revenue was at liberty to move an application for recalling the order.
The High Court held that the instant appeal, with a tax effect indisputably less than Rs. 20 lac, deserved to be dismissed as not pressed in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, were left open to be examined in appropriate future proceedings. The Revenue was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions mentioned in the Circular dated 10.12.2015. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as not pressed.
The High Court held that the appeal, having a tax effect less than Rs. 20 lac, which is the monetary limit prescribed for filing appeals before the High Court as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, deserved to be dismissed as not pressed. The court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, were left open to be examined in future appropriate proceedings. The court also observed that if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions specified in the circular (e.g., constitutional validity, Board's order held illegal, revenue audit objection accepted, or addition relating to undisclosed foreign assets/bank accounts), the Revenue would be at liberty to move an application for recalling the order. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to revive in case of difficulty.
The High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed as not pressed, taking into account the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 and the fact that the tax effect in the instant case is less than Rs. 20 lakh, which is the prescribed limit for filing appeals before the High Court. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, are left open to be examined in future proceedings. The Revenue was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal falls under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the present writ petition should be dismissed, following the precedent set by the dismissal of a similar writ petition filed by Surendra Pal Singh Sahni. The Court noted that the earlier judgment, which dismissed the writ petition of Surendra Pal Singh Sahni, had not been interfered with by the Division Bench. Therefore, the present writ petition was ordered to be governed by that judgment. The reasoning is based on the principle of judicial precedent, where similar matters are decided consistently. The operative direction is the dismissal of the writ petition. No specific issues were decided on merits as the case was disposed of based on the earlier order.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is to be dismissed as not pressed. The reasoning is based on the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 20 lac for filing appeals before the High Courts. Since the tax effect in the present case is indisputably less than Rs. 20 lac, the appeal does not meet the threshold for filing. The Court clarified that any substantial questions of law raised in the appeal are left open to be examined in future proceedings. The Revenue is also granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal falls under any of the exceptions mentioned in the CBDT circular. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as not pressed.
The High Court held that the appeal, having a tax effect of less than Rs. 20 lac, deserved to be dismissed as not pressed, in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Court noted that the circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals. However, the Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, were left open to be examined in future appropriate proceedings. The Revenue was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular dated 10.12.2015. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as not pressed.
The High Court held that the issues raised in the appeal were covered by its previous decisions in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 597/2009 and CIT Kota Vs. HH Maharajo Bhim Singh & ors., decided on 14.12.2016. These decisions, in turn, were based on a Supreme Court ruling dated 05.12.2016. The Supreme Court had held that income earned by a former ruler from the requisition of property is not taxable. Consequently, the High Court found that question (iv) regarding the taxability of income on requisitioned property was covered. The court further observed that the other questions framed by the revenue, particularly those relating to Sections 147 and 148, had become academic. Since the income derived by the assessee was not taxable, no fruitful purpose would be served by examining these issues further. Therefore, the appeals deserved to be dismissed. The operative direction was that the appeal stands dismissed.
The High Court held that the instant appeal, with a tax effect indisputably less than Rs. 20 lac, deserves to be dismissed as not pressed, in light of CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015. The Court clarified that substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, are left open to be examined in an appropriate proceeding in the future. The Revenue was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal falls under any of the exceptions specified in the Circular. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as not pressed, with the appellant being at liberty to revive the appeal in case of difficulty. No specific issue was left undecided, but the merits of the substantial questions of law were deferred.
The High Court, in light of its own prior decision in CIT Vs. M/s Gems Paradise, remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for reassessment. The AO was directed to accept the law as declared but to verify the genuineness of the transactions. The judgment also noted that the matter was to be decided on the basis of 25% as held in earlier cases. Consequently, both issues were decided in favour of the Department and against the assessee. The appeal was disposed of with directions for reassessment, effectively overturning the ITAT's deletion of the addition and restoring the matter for fresh determination by the AO.
The High Court held that the process undertaken by the assessee, as detailed by the ITAT, clearly covered the activities and fell under Section 10BA. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in ITO vs. Arihant Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd., the Court found that the assessee's activities constituted 'manufacture or production'. The Court noted that the word 'production' has a wider ambit than 'manufacture', and the assessee's detailed process involved various stages leading to a distinct new product. Therefore, the view taken by the ITAT was considered just and proper, and no interference was called for. The issue was answered in favour of the assessee. Regarding the second issue concerning delayed deposit of employee's contribution to ESI & PF, the Court stated it was subject to a pending Special Leave Petition (SLP) but, for the time being, answered it in favour of the assessee.
The High Court held that the appeal deserved to be dismissed as not pressed, taking note of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and the fact that the tax effect in the instant case was less than Rs. 20 lakh, which is the prescribed limit for filing appeals before the High Courts. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, were left open to be examined in an appropriate proceeding in the future. The Revenue was also granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions specified in the Circular dated 10.12.2015. The operative direction was that the appeal stands dismissed as not pressed.
The High Court held that the appeal, having a tax effect less than the Rs. 20 lac limit prescribed for High Court appeals by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, deserved to be dismissed as not pressed. The Court acknowledged that the circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals. It was clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, were left open for examination in future proceedings. The Revenue was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular. The ratio decidendi is that appeals below the prescribed monetary limits, as per the CBDT circular, should generally be dismissed as not pressed, unless they fall under specific exceptions or have unquantifiable tax effects.
The High Court held that the instant appeal, with a tax effect indisputably less than Rs. 20 lakh, deserves to be dismissed as not pressed, in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Court noted that the circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals. It clarified that substantial questions of law, if any, are left open to be examined in future appropriate proceedings. The Revenue was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal falls under any of the exceptions specified in the circular. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as not pressed.
The High Court, after perusing the cited judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., found that the law enunciated therein was mutatis mutandis applicable to the facts of the present case. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment does not explicitly detail the Tribunal's reasoning for deleting the additions related to Privilege Fee or its findings on the PF/ESI contribution issue. However, by applying the precedent, it implies agreement with the Tribunal's decision on these points. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court held that the appeals should be dismissed as not pressed, in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10/12/2015. The court noted that the tax effect in the instant cases was less than Rs. 20 lac, which was the monetary limit prescribed for filing appeals before the High Court. Paragraph 10 of the circular stated that pending appeals below the specified tax limits could be withdrawn or not pressed. The court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeals, if any, were left open to be examined in future appropriate proceedings. The Revenue was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions specified in the circular. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals as not pressed, with liberty to the appellants to revive them if necessary.
The High Court decided Issue No. 1 by partly allowing it in favour of the assessee. While the Tribunal had sustained a trading addition, the High Court, considering the assessee's average GP rate of 11.4% (compared to 10% in the Ram Sharan case and 14% in another comparable), decided that the GP rate should be considered at 11.4% instead of 24% as held by the Tribunal. The rest of the Tribunal's directions on this issue were to remain intact. For Issue No. 2, the High Court completely answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. The Tribunal had sustained an addition of Rs. 50,000/- in the case of Shri Santosh Kumar Agarwal, citing his limited means, while deleting a similar addition for Smt. Baby Agarwal. The High Court found this distinction unjustified and directed that the addition of Rs. 50,000/- pertaining to Shri Santosh Kumar Agarwal should be deleted, aligning with the relief granted to Smt. Baby Agarwal.
The High Court held that the appeals should be dismissed as not pressed, in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and the fact that the tax effect was less than Rs. 20 lac. The Court clarified that any substantial questions of law raised in the appeals are left open to be examined in future appropriate proceedings. The Revenue was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals as not pressed.
The High Court held that the instant appeal, having a tax effect less than Rs. 20 lac, which is the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, deserves to be dismissed as not pressed. The Court noted that the Circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals. However, the Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, are left open to be examined in an appropriate proceeding in the future. The Revenue was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal falls under any of the exceptions mentioned in the Circular, such as constitutional validity challenges or where the Board's order is held illegal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as not pressed.
The High Court held that the analogy applied by the CIT(A) was correct, particularly considering that the books of account were not rejected. The Court found that the CIT(A)'s reasoning on both issues was sound. For the drayage issue, the CIT(A) had deleted the addition of Rs. 10,21,020/- on the grounds that the books were not rejected under Section 145(2) and the driage was not purely an estimate. For the insurance issue, the CIT(A) had restricted the addition to Rs. 2,38,635/-, treating the excess collection over premium paid as a trading receipt, while upholding the genuineness of payments to the insurance company. The High Court concluded that both issues should be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. The appeal was allowed, implying the ITAT's order was set aside and the CIT(A)'s order was restored.
The High Court held that the appeals were to be dismissed as not pressed, taking into account the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 and the fact that the tax effect in the instant case was less than Rs. 20 lac, which is the monetary limit prescribed for filing appeals before the High Courts. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeals, if any, were left open to be examined in an appropriate proceeding in the future. The Revenue was also granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions mentioned in the Circular dated 10.12.2015. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals as not pressed.
The High Court decided to set aside the order of the Tribunal. The reasoning was based on the peculiar facts of the case, specifically that the sole assessee is residing in an old age home and the amount in dispute is very meager. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the judgment and order of the Tribunal were quashed and set aside. The court explicitly stated that this decision should not be treated as a precedent in any other case. No specific finding was recorded on the applicability of Section 40A(2) or the correctness of the income enhancement, as the appeal was allowed on the peculiar facts.
The High Court held that the ITAT's decision on the first issue regarding commission and brokerage under Section 37 was just and proper. The court noted that the department had accepted similar claims in previous years, the commission was paid through account payee cheques, and the books of account were not rejected. Therefore, the issue was answered in favour of the assessee. Regarding Section 43B, the court, in view of the Delhi High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Ram Pistons & Rings Ltd., found the Tribunal's view just and proper, answering the issue in favour of the assessee. For Section 80JJAA, the court found that permanency was not a prerequisite and an increase was evident, leading the Tribunal to rightly grant the benefit to the assessee. The fourth issue, related to Section 43B and research for business benefit, was also answered in favour of the assessee. Consequently, all appeals, except one, were dismissed.
The High Court held that it found no just reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), which was affirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had unambiguously concluded, after recording all facts, that the Revenue had failed to dislodge the basis on which the Assessing Officer's addition was deleted. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue did not involve any error warranting interference. The High Court dismissed the appeal. The specific addition made by the Assessing Officer and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court noted that the ITAT had considered the rival contentions, perused the material on record, and arrived at a well-reasoned decision. The ITAT had specifically addressed the assessee's arguments regarding reconciliation of facts and figures, the delay in retraction, and the unrecorded purchase bills, expenses, and stock valuation. The ITAT found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, which had deleted an addition related to construction costs but otherwise confirmed the AO's additions. The High Court concluded that the appeal was based entirely on the factual matrix and that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities did not warrant interference. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court, taking into consideration the judgments of the Division Bench of its own court in CIT, Jaipur-II vs. M/s. Somani Industries and the Gujarat High Court in Chetnaben J Shah vs. Income Tax Officer, held that the limitation period starts from January 3, 1997, and the assessment made beyond one year is barred by limitation. The Court found that the contention regarding limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact, could be raised at any time, and it was not necessary for it to have been raised before the third member. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the issue of limitation was answered in favor of the assessee in the cross-objection and against the department. The operative direction was the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs. 71 lakhs did not reach the assessee as his own income but was factually diverted to JTFSPL due to an overriding obligation. The Tribunal found no basis or material to support the CIT(A)'s finding that Rs. 35.75 lakhs had come back to the assessee from JTFSPL, nor was there cogent material to corroborate the oral statement for the return of money. Therefore, the Tribunal found no justification in holding Rs. 35.75 lakhs as accommodation entries, setting aside the CIT(A)'s decision and allowing the assessee's ground. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal ground was also rejected as devoid of merit. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The High Court found the Tribunal's view just and proper, upholding the decision in favour of the assessee.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue deserved to be dismissed as not pressed, taking into account CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and the fact that the tax effect was less than Rs. 20 lac. The Court clarified that any substantial questions of law raised in the appeal were left open to be examined in future appropriate proceedings. The Revenue was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as not pressed, with the option for the appellant's counsel to revive the appeal in case of difficulty.
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions as withdrawn, granting the liberty sought by the petitioners. The Court directed that the petitioners are at liberty to raise all the issues before the Assessing Authority, as had been raised in the writ petitions. In such an event, the concerned authority would consider and decide all the issues without pre-determination. The Court did not decide the merits of the issues raised by the petitioners, as the petitions were withdrawn. The ratio decidendi is that when a party withdraws a petition with liberty to approach the original authority, the original authority must consider all issues raised without prejudice.
The High Court allowed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty sought. The petitioners were granted liberty to raise all the issues before the Assessing Authority as had been raised in the writ petitions. In such a scenario, the concerned authority was directed to consider and decide all the issues without pre-determination. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the issues that were to be raised before the Assessing Authority, as the petitions were withdrawn. Therefore, no specific finding on any substantive legal or factual matter was made by the High Court.
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions as withdrawn, granting the liberty sought by the petitioners. The court directed that the petitioners are at liberty to raise all the issues before the Assessing Authority, as had been raised in the writ petitions. In turn, the Assessing Authority was directed to consider and decide all such issues without pre-determination. The court did not decide the merits of the original issues that would have been adjudicated had the writ petitions not been withdrawn. The operative direction is the dismissal of the petitions as withdrawn with liberty granted.
The High Court, in view of the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, dismissed the writ petitions as withdrawn. The court granted the petitioners the liberty to raise all the issues before the Assessing Authority, as had been raised in the writ petitions. The court further directed that the Assessing Authority concerned would consider and decide all these issues without pre-determination. The judgment does not record any decision on the merits of the issues that were to be raised before the Assessing Authority. The operative direction is the dismissal of the petitions as withdrawn with liberty granted.
The High Court held that the instant appeal, with a tax effect indisputably less than Rs. 20 lac (the monetary limit prescribed for filing appeals before the High Courts in CBDT Circular No. 21/2015), deserved to be dismissed as not pressed. The court emphasized that the circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals. It was clarified that substantial questions of law, if any, raised in the appeal were left open to be examined in future appropriate proceedings. The court also observed that if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular (e.g., constitutional validity, Board's order held illegal, revenue audit objection accepted, or addition relating to undisclosed foreign assets/bank accounts), the Revenue was at liberty to move an application for recalling the order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed in light of the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015.