Loading High Court cases…
73 orders · Page 2 of 2
The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, comprising the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Rajesh Shankar, decided that the Civil Review petition was not pressed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner explicitly stated that they were under instructions not to press the review. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Civil Review petition as not pressed. Any pending applications associated with this review were also disposed of. The judgment does not delve into the merits of any underlying tax dispute or the original order being reviewed, as the review itself was withdrawn by the petitioner.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the relief sought by the petitioner, namely a direction to supply documents that the Income Tax Department claims are not traceable, cannot be granted. The Court observed that if the documents are not available with the department, no such direction can be issued. Furthermore, the Court advised the petitioner that she can approach the appellate court where her appeal is pending for appropriate directions to the Income Tax Department to produce the relevant record. The Court disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to raise all issues regarding receiving documents before the appellate court. No specific finding was given on the legality of proceedings held in absence of documents, as this was to be raised before the appellate authority.
The High Court granted the permission sought by the appellant. The Court allowed the miscellaneous applications filed for the stated reasons. Consequently, the appeals (D.B. Income Tax Appeal Nos. 49/2017, 50/2017, 51/2017 & 52/2017) were dismissed as withdrawn. The liberty to seek appropriate remedy under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, was granted to the appellant. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeals themselves, as they were withdrawn. The ratio decidendi is that parties are generally permitted to withdraw their appeals to pursue remedies under a specific scheme, provided such liberty is sought and granted.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by M/s Punjab Institute of Medical Sciences, Jalandhar. The dismissal is based on the reasoning provided in a separate, but related, judgment concerning ITA No. 271 of 2014, which involved the same assessee and the Commissioner of Income Tax. The specific findings or ratio decidendi from the referenced judgment are not detailed in this excerpt. Therefore, the exact legal principle that can be cited from this decision is not ascertainable from the provided text. The operative directions are that the appeal is dismissed, with no mention of remand or deletion. Any issues expressly left undecided are not recorded.
The High Court granted the permission sought by the appellant. The Court allowed the miscellaneous applications filed for the stated reasons. Consequently, the appeals (D.B. Income Tax Appeal Nos. 49/2017, 50/2017, 51/2017 & 52/2017) were dismissed as withdrawn. The liberty to seek appropriate remedy under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, was granted to the appellant. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeals themselves, as they were withdrawn. The ratio decidendi is that parties are generally permitted to withdraw their appeals to pursue remedies under a specific scheme, provided such liberty is sought and granted.
The High Court granted permission to the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning provided is that the appellant intends to avail the benefits under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The application filed for withdrawal was disposed of accordingly. No specific findings on the merits of the original appeal were made as it was withdrawn.
In D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 2/2012, the High Court accepted the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appeal had rendered infructuous due to a subsequent event. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this basis. The reasoning is solely based on the appellant's submission regarding the appeal becoming infructuous. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal rendered infructuous by subsequent events will be dismissed. For D.B. Income Tax Appeal Nos. 5/2012 and 19/2012, the High Court directed that these appeals should not be treated as connected with D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 2/2012 and should be listed separately. No decision on the merits of these appeals was made in this excerpt.
The High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision to grant specific performance but modified the order. The plaintiff was directed to pay an additional amount to the defendant within a specified time.
The High Court granted the appellant's counsel liberty to withdraw the present appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case. The judgment does not provide any reasoning or ratio decidendi as no substantive arguments were considered. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is fatal to the assessment proceedings. The Court found the facts of the present case to be identical to the facts in the Apex Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Laxmandas Khandelwal. The Court quoted paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Laxmandas judgment, which clarified that Section 292BB of the Act, dealing with deemed valid notice upon participation, does not save complete absence of notice; it only cures infirmities in the manner of service. Since no notice under Section 143(2) was ever issued by the Department, the High Court found no error of law in the ITAT's order setting aside the assessment. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.