Rajasthan High Court Judgments — 2019

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur noted that the learned counsel for the petitioners wished to withdraw the writ petitions. Consequently, in view of the stated intention of the petitioners to withdraw their petitions, the High Court ordered that the present writ petitions be dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of any underlying income tax dispute. The operative direction was to dismiss the petitions as withdrawn.

The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioners expressed a desire to withdraw the writ petitions. Consequently, in view of this submission, the Court ordered that the present writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the underlying tax dispute. The operative direction was to dismiss the petitions. The principle here is that a party has the right to withdraw their legal proceedings, and the court will generally grant such a request, leading to a dismissal of the case without adjudication.

The tribunal held that the complainant failed to prove the existence of a legally recoverable debt and the source of income to lend the claimed amounts. Furthermore, the complainant did not prove the service of a demand notice, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 138 of the NI Act.

The High Court held that the appeal filed by the revenue was liable to be dismissed. The reasoning was based on the Circular dated 08th August, 2019, issued by the CBDT, which stipulated enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals. The Circular specified that appeals before the High Court should have a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Since the amount involved in the present case was Rs. 63,62,034/-, which is below the enhanced monetary limit, the appeal was not maintainable. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the revenue must adhere to the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT circulars, and non-compliance renders the appeal liable for dismissal. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

The High Court held that the petitioner's argument was frivolous and untenable. While it was factually correct that the reasons and satisfaction recorded for the present notice under Section 148 for Assessment Year 2013-14 were identical in phraseology to the earlier notice for Assessment Year 2011-12, this did not render the proceedings illegal or without jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that material seized from a third party might contain transactions spread across different account or assessment years. Consequently, the Income Tax Officer can initiate reassessment proceedings for different years based on such material, splitting transactions to the year they relate. The Court found that the authorities had objectively applied their minds to the required extent. Therefore, the impugned notice was not found to be void or without jurisdiction. The writ petition and the stay application were dismissed.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, allowed the appeal to be taken up for hearing. The appellant's counsel stated that due to the tax effect being under Rs. 2 crores, there were specific instructions to withdraw the appeal in view of Circular No. 9 of 2024 dated September 17, 2024. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the original ITAT order. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. After perusing the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, and the grounds taken in the appeal, the Court concluded that the appeal did not present any matter requiring further legal determination at the High Court level. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The reasoning is based solely on the absence of a question of law, as per the Court's assessment of the presented material. No specific issue was decided on merits, and no operative directions were issued other than the dismissal of the appeal.

The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeals. This decision was based on Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification, which stipulated that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 1 crore should be withdrawn. The Tribunal found that the tax effect in these appeals was indeed less than Rs. 1 crore. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the original dispute between the assessee and the revenue. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn.

The High Court granted the permission sought by the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeal. This decision was based on the Circular No. 17/2019 and its clarification, which indicated that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than Rs. 1 crore. The Tribunal's reasoning for granting permission was solely procedural, aligning with the CBDT's instructions on appeal filing based on monetary limits. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the underlying tax dispute. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeals. The reasoning was based on Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which, along with its clarification, stipulated conditions for withdrawal of appeals by the Revenue based on the tax effect. Since the tax effect in these appeals was less than Rs. 1 crore, the Revenue sought to withdraw them. The Tribunal acceded to this request. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No specific findings on the merits of the original assessment or the grounds of appeal were made, as the appeals were disposed of on a procedural basis.

The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeals. This decision was based on Circular No. 17/2019, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue represented that the tax effect in these appeals was below the threshold of Rs. 1 crore. Consequently, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeals were withdrawn before any decision on the merits.

The High Court granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeals. The decision was based on the tax effect being less than Rs.1 crore, as per Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeals in view of the aforementioned circular and clarification. The operative direction was that the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. No specific findings on the merits of the original assessment or the grounds of appeal were made, as the appeals were withdrawn before any such adjudication.

The High Court granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeal. This decision was based on the appellant's submission that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than Rs. 1 crore, and in view of Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the CBDT. The Court noted the clarification dated 20.08.2019. The reasoning for the decision is solely based on the applicability of the aforementioned circular and the appellant's request. The principle derived is that appeals with a low tax effect, as defined by CBDT circulars, can be withdrawn by the Revenue. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.

The Tribunal held that the Excise and Taxation Department would not be liable to pay the tax if the toll lessees had already paid income tax on their earnings. However, the department would be liable to pay interest on the short-deducted TCS.

The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant (revenue) to withdraw the appeals. This decision was based on Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of India, and its clarification dated 20.08.2019. The circular provides guidelines for withdrawal of appeals based on the tax effect. As the tax effect in the present appeals was less than Rs. 1 crore, the appellant sought withdrawal. The Tribunal acceded to this request. No specific findings on the merits of the original assessment or the grounds of appeal were made, as the appeals were disposed of on a procedural basis.

The High Court granted permission to the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jodhpur, to withdraw the appeal. This decision was based on the appellant's submission that the tax effect involved in the appeal was less than Rs. 1 crore, aligning with the guidelines provided in Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The court did not delve into the merits of the original dispute or the assessment proceedings. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.

The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court relied on the instructions dated 08th August, 2019, issued in furtherance of CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, which specified enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals. Specifically, the instructions stipulated a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for appeals before the High Court. The Revenue's counsel conceded that the monetary limit in the present appeal was below this threshold. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal in light of the aforesaid instructions. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the Revenue that do not meet the prescribed monetary limits for the appellate forum are liable to be dismissed without delving into the merits of the case. No specific relief was granted to the assessee, and no issue was left undecided.

The High Court held that the appeal was to be dismissed in light of the instructions dated 08th August, 2019, which were issued in furtherance of CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018. These instructions specified enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department before the High Court, which was Rs. 1,00,00,000. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the monetary limit in the present appeal was less than this prescribed amount. Consequently, the Court found the appeal to be not maintainable or to be dismissed on this procedural ground. The reasoning was based solely on the compliance with the monetary limits set by the CBDT for litigation management. No decision was made on the merits of the substantive tax dispute.

The High Court dismissed the appeals and cross-objection. The dismissal was based on the revised monetary limits specified by the CBDT, which indicated that the appeals fell below the threshold for further litigation.

The High Court dismissed the appeals and cross-objection. The dismissal was based on the revised monetary limits specified by the CBDT, which indicated that the appeals fell below the threshold for further litigation.

The Rajasthan High Court held that the present appeal is dismissed in light of the instructions dated 08th August, 2019, issued in furtherance of CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. These instructions specified enhanced monetary limits for filing income tax appeals before various authorities, including the High Court. The appellant's counsel submitted that the monetary limit in the present appeal was below the enhanced threshold. The Court accepted this submission and proceeded to dismiss the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the Department that do not meet the prescribed monetary limits for filing, as per CBDT instructions, are to be dismissed. No specific relief was granted or deleted, and no issue was left undecided.

The High Court held that the present appeal is dismissed in light of the instructions dated 08th August, 2019. These instructions, issued in furtherance of CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, specified enhanced monetary limits for filing income tax appeals. Specifically, the limit for appeals before the High Court was set at Rs. 1,00,00,000. The appellant's counsel submitted that the monetary limit in the present appeal was less than this prescribed amount. Consequently, the Court found the appeal to be non-maintainable based on the revised monetary threshold. No decision was made on the merits of the substantive tax dispute.

The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal. The Court noted that substantial questions of law 1, 2, and 3 had already been decided by this Court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 54/2018, wherein the assessee's appeal was allowed. Furthermore, substantial question of law 4 had also been decided by this Court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 84/2018, wherein the revenue's appeal was dismissed. In light of these prior judgments rendered by the High Court on identical issues concerning the same assessee, the present appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. The specific findings and reasoning of the ITAT on each issue were not elaborated upon by the High Court, as the dismissal was based on precedent. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court held that questions 1, 2, and 3 had already been decided by this Court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 54/2018, where the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. This implies the ITAT's decision on these points, treating interest receipts as capital receipts and allowing related claims, was upheld. Furthermore, question 4 was also decided by this Court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 84/2018, where the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. This means the ITAT's decision upholding the assessee's claim for Mines Closure Plan as admissible expenditure was also affirmed. The reasoning is that these issues were conclusively decided in prior judgments of the same court between the same parties or involving similar facts and legal questions. The ratio decidendi from these prior judgments would apply. The operative direction is that the present appeal stands dismissed in light of the aforesaid judgments.

The High Court allowed the appeals filed by the assessees (D.B. Income Tax Appeal Nos. 266/18 and 267/18) and dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue (D.B. Income Tax Appeal Nos. 270/18, 285/18, 286/18, and 295/18). The Court held that the substantial question of law involved was squarely covered by its previous judgment in Modern Denim Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of I.T., Jaipur. In that judgment, the Court had reversed the ITAT's decision and restored the CIT(A)'s view, following the Bombay High Court's ruling in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. The principle established was that income taxable under Section 28(iv) must be a benefit or perquisite arising from business, and Section 28(iv) does not apply to benefits received in cash or money. The Supreme Court's dismissal of civil appeals against the Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. judgment further solidified this position. Consequently, the remission of loan liabilities by banks was not considered taxable income under Section 28(iv).

The High Court allowed the appeals filed by the assessees (M/s Modern Threads (India) Ltd. and Modern Syntex (India) Limited) and dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax). The Court's decision was based on its prior judgment in Modern Demin Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of I.T., Jaipur, which in turn relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, as upheld by the Supreme Court. The principle established is that income taxable under Section 28(iv) must be a benefit or perquisite arising from business, and Section 28(iv) does not apply to benefits received in cash or money. Therefore, the remission of loan principal by banks/financial institutions, which is a benefit in money, does not constitute income taxable under Section 28(iv). The operative direction was to allow the assessee's appeals and dismiss the revenue's appeals, restoring the view taken by the CIT(A) in the assessees' favour.

The High Court allowed the appeals filed by the assessees (M/s Modern Threads (India) Ltd. and Modern Syntex (India) Limited) and dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax). The Court's decision was based on its prior judgment in Modern Demin Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of I.T., Jaipur, which in turn relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, as upheld by the Supreme Court. The principle established is that income taxable under Section 28(iv) must be a benefit or perquisite arising from business, and Section 28(iv) does not apply to benefits received in cash or money. Therefore, the remission of loan principal by banks/financial institutions, which is a benefit in money, does not constitute income taxable under Section 28(iv). The operative direction was to allow the assessee's appeals and dismiss the revenue's appeals, restoring the view taken by the CIT(A) in the assessees' favour.

The High Court allowed the appeals filed by the assessees (Appeal Nos. 266/18 and 267/18) and dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue (Appeal Nos. 270/18, 285/18, 286/18, and 295/18). The Court held that the remission of the principal amount of loans obtained from financial institutions and banks does not constitute a benefit or perquisite arising from business that would fall within the ambit of Section 28(iv) of the Act. The reasoning was based on the principle that Section 28(iv) applies to benefits or perquisites arising from business, and it does not apply to benefits in cash or money. The Court followed its own previous judgment in Modern Denim Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of I.T., Jaipur, which in turn relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, a decision that was upheld by the Supreme Court. The ratio decidendi is that a waiver of a loan principal by a financial institution is not income taxable under Section 28(iv) as it is not a benefit or perquisite arising from business in the manner contemplated by the section.

The High Court dismissed the appeal. The decision was based on the instructions dated August 8, 2019, which were issued in furtherance of CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. These instructions enhanced the monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department. The Revenue's counsel conceded that the monetary limit in the present appeal was below the revised threshold. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in light of these instructions. The specific monetary limit in dispute was not explicitly stated in the judgment, only that it was less than the prescribed limit for High Court appeals. No other issues were decided on merits.

The High Court held that the present appeal is dismissed in light of the instructions dated 08th August, 2019. These instructions, issued in furtherance of CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018, specify enhanced monetary limits for filing income tax appeals. The Court noted that the monetary limit in this particular appeal was less than the prescribed amount. The reasoning is based on the administrative decision by the Board to manage litigation by enhancing monetary limits for appeals. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the Department that do not meet the specified monetary threshold for the relevant appellate forum are to be dismissed. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal.

The High Court held that the trial court erred by not framing an issue on the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract. Considering the defendant's contention that the agreement was for loan security and the significant escalation in property value, the court found the trial court's decree unsustainable.

The High Court, considering that a Coordinate Bench had already examined a similar controversy in Niharika Jain & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (dated July 12, 2019), disposed of the present writ petitions in terms of that judgment. The Coordinate Bench, in paragraphs 93, 94, and 95 of its decision, held that the Benami Amendment Act, 2016, enforced w.e.f. November 1, 2016, cannot have retrospective effect. The Court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the writ applications but only the larger question of retrospective applicability. It was made clear that the amended provisions would be prospective and not retrospective. The Court also noted that if any order was passed by the Division Bench in the appeal preferred by the Revenue, the parties would be bound by it. The writ applications were disposed of accordingly.