Rajasthan High Court Judgments — 2020

The High Court held that the relief prayed for by the petitioner could not be granted. The Court reasoned that if the documents demanded by the petitioner are not available with the Income Tax Department, no direction can be issued for their supply. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner could approach the appellate court, where his appeal is pending, to seek an appropriate direction to the Income Tax Department authorities for the production of relevant records. The writ petition was dismissed with these observations. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 2(15) of the IT Act was not applicable as there was no material to suggest the assessee was conducting its affairs solely on commercial lines with a profit motive. The assessee's predominant object was charitable and statutory.

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction to the respondents. The Court ordered the respondents to ensure the credit of the refund amount, as mentioned in the approval letter dated 08.06.2020, within a period of three weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of the Court's order. The Court further stipulated that if the respondents failed to credit the amount within the aforesaid period, the refund would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period commencing after the expiry of the three-week period until the date of payment. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court granted the permission sought by the appellants to withdraw the present income tax appeals. The court allowed the applications for withdrawal and consequently dismissed the income tax appeals as withdrawn. The appellants were granted liberty to pursue appropriate remedies under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The court did not decide on the merits of the original appeals, as they were withdrawn by the appellants. The ratio of this decision is that courts will permit withdrawal of appeals when sought by the appellant, especially when liberty is granted to pursue alternative remedies under a specific scheme like the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The High Court accepted the appellant's submission and disposed of the appeal as withdrawn. The court found the prayer to be fair and reasonable in light of the new circular.

The High Court granted the permission sought by the appellants to withdraw their income tax appeals. The court's decision was based on the appellants' request to seek appropriate remedies under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The court allowed the applications for withdrawal and consequently dismissed the income tax appeals as withdrawn. The liberty to seek remedies under the aforementioned Act was also granted to the appellants. The reasoning is that the appellants explicitly wished to pursue a different statutory remedy, and the court acceded to this request. No specific findings on the merits of the original appeals were made, as they were withdrawn.

The High Court granted the permission sought by the appellants to withdraw the present income tax appeals. The court allowed the applications for withdrawal and consequently dismissed the income tax appeals as withdrawn. The appellants were granted liberty to pursue appropriate remedies under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The court did not decide on the merits of the original appeals, as they were withdrawn by the appellants. The ratio of this decision is that courts will permit withdrawal of appeals when sought by the appellant, especially when liberty is granted to pursue alternative remedies under a specific scheme like the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The High Court granted the permission sought by the appellants to withdraw the present income tax appeals. The court allowed the applications for withdrawal and consequently dismissed the income tax appeals as withdrawn. The appellants were granted liberty to pursue appropriate remedies under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The court did not decide on the merits of the original appeals, as they were withdrawn by the appellants. The ratio of this decision is that courts will permit withdrawal of appeals when sought by the appellant, especially when liberty is granted to pursue alternative remedies under a specific scheme like the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The High Court granted the permission sought by the appellants to withdraw the present income tax appeals. The court allowed the applications for withdrawal and consequently dismissed the income tax appeals as withdrawn. The appellants were granted liberty to pursue appropriate remedies under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The court did not decide on the merits of the original appeals, as they were withdrawn by the appellants. The ratio of this decision is that courts will permit withdrawal of appeals when sought by the appellant, especially when liberty is granted to pursue alternative remedies under a specific scheme like the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The High Court, without commenting on the merits of the assessment order or the petitioner's stay application, deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition. The Court directed the Assessing Authority (Respondent No.1) to decide the petitioner's stay application within a period of 15 days from the date of filing a certified copy of the Court's order. The Court's reasoning was to ensure that the petitioner's pending application for stay is addressed promptly, thereby providing a procedural avenue for her grievance before further coercive recovery measures are taken. The Court did not decide the substantive issues of the assessment or the appeal. The stay petition filed before the High Court was also disposed of as a consequence of the directions issued.

The High Court granted the permission sought by the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning for this decision is based on the Circular No. 17/2019 and its clarification, which permit withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is less than Rs. 1 crore. The Court noted that the tax effect in the present appeal was indeed below this threshold. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case, and no issues were left undecided as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds.

The High Court granted the appellant's (CIT) request to withdraw the appeal. This decision was made in light of Circular No. 17/2019 and a subsequent clarification dated 20.08.2019. The circular indicates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 1 crore may be withdrawn. As the tax effect in the present appeal was stated to be less than Rs. 1 crore, the learned counsel for the appellant sought and was granted permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No other issues were decided, and no specific ratio decidendi for substantive tax law was established.

The Tribunal considered Circular No. 17/2019, dated 08.08.2019, and its clarification dated 20.08.2019, which pertains to the withdrawal of appeals based on the tax effect involved. The appellant (revenue), citing this circular, stated that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than Rs. 1 crore and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Court granted the permission sought by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No specific findings on the merits of the original dispute were made, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground based on the tax effect policy. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the threshold stipulated in CBDT circulars are to be withdrawn by the revenue.

The High Court noted that the respondent-assessee had settled the matter under the Direct Tax Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and discharged the tax liability. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal. The Court explicitly stated that the questions of law which were sought to be urged are kept open to be addressed in appropriate proceedings. This implies that the merits of the original dispute were not decided by the High Court. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal based on the settlement. No specific findings were made on the substantive issues of the appeal, and no ratio decidendi for future cases on the merits of the dispute can be extracted from this order.

The High Court held that an order passed in favour of or against a dead person is a nullity. It was undisputed that the respondent had expired prior to the ITAT's order. Therefore, the High Court found it appropriate to set aside the order under appeal. The reasoning was based on the established legal principle that proceedings against or in favour of a deceased person without substitution of their legal representatives are void. The ratio decidendi is that any order passed by an appellate authority without substituting the legal heirs of a deceased party is a nullity and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the ITAT's order and remanded the matter back to the ITAT to pass a fresh order after the substitution of the person representing the estate of the deceased, in accordance with law. The appeal and the application for substitution were disposed of.

The High Court held that the provisions of Section 115BBE, as they existed prior to the amendment, did not disallow set-off of losses against the income referred to therein. The amendment, which explicitly introduced the restriction on set-off of losses, was made to dispel existing uncertainty and could not be applied retrospectively. The Court further noted that CBDT Circular No. 11/2019 unequivocally clarified that the phrase 'or set off of any loss' was inserted by the Finance Act, 2016, effective April 1, 2017. Therefore, an assessee is entitled to claim set-off of losses against income determined under Section 115BBE until Assessment Year 2016-17. The Court found the Revenue's contention to be unsustainable in light of this clarification. No other grounds were pressed by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The High Court held that since an order of assessment has been passed by the assessing authority during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has a statutory remedy of filing an appeal against the assessment order. The Court observed that the petitioner is free to raise all the issues that were raised in the writ petition before the appellate authority. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with the petitioner being granted the liberty to pursue the appellate remedy in accordance with law. No specific finding was made on the validity of the Section 148 notice itself, as the petition was disposed of on procedural grounds.

The Tribunal held that the appellant, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jodhpur, was permitted to withdraw the appeal. This decision was based on Circular No. 17/2019 (F.No.279/MISC./142/2007-ITJ (PT.) dated 08.08.2019) and its clarification dated 20.08.2019, which stipulated a threshold for tax effect below which appeals should not be filed or pursued. The Tribunal granted the permission sought by the appellant's counsel. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original dispute.

The High Court granted the appellant-Department leave to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court granted the appellant's (Income Tax Department) request to withdraw the appeal. This withdrawal was based on a circular from the Board setting monetary limits for filing appeals.