Rajasthan High Court Judgments — 2024

The High Court held that the profits derived from the captive consumption of electricity generated by the assessee's power plant are eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court interpreted the term 'derived' in Section 80-IA(1) to include profits obtained from one's own consumption of the undertaking's output. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and the Madras High Court's ruling in CIT vs. Thiagarjar Mills Limited (as cited in Tamil Nadu Petro Products Ltd. vs. ACIT), the Court found that saving costs through captive consumption is equivalent to deriving profit. Therefore, the Tribunal's finding that the profits from the power generation unit were eligible for deduction as a separate undertaking under Section 80-IA was justified. The substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. Consequently, the Assessee's appeal was allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The High Court held that the profits derived from the captive consumption of electricity generated by the assessee's power plant are eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court interpreted the term 'derived' in Section 80-IA(1) to include profits obtained from one's own consumption of the outcome of an undertaking. Relying on the judgments in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar and CIT vs. Thiagarjar Mills Limited (as reproduced in Tamil Nadu Petro Products Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax), the Court reasoned that saving costs through captive consumption is equivalent to deriving profit and gain. Therefore, the Tribunal's finding that the profits from the power generation unit are eligible for deduction as a separate undertaking under Section 80-IA was justified. The substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The High Court held that the profits derived by the assessee's power generation unit from captive consumption of electricity are eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. The Court interpreted the word 'derived' in Section 80-IA(1) to include profits obtained from one's own consumption of the outcome of an undertaking. Citing judgments from the Delhi High Court in Orient Abrassive Ltd. and the Madras High Court in Tamil Nadu Petro Products Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which followed the Supreme Court's interpretation in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar, the Court found that captive consumption allows the assessee to save costs, which is equivalent to deriving profit. Therefore, the Tribunal's finding that the profits from the captive power plant are eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA was upheld. The substantial question of law regarding Section 80-IA eligibility was answered in favour of the assessee. The issue regarding the invocation of Section 263 was implicitly decided in favour of the assessee by allowing their appeal and dismissing the Revenue's appeals, which stemmed from the Section 263 proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the formulated substantial question of law is kept open. Furthermore, the department was granted liberty to move an appropriate application for revival of the appeal if the need arises. No decision was made on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal granted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning was based on the CBDT circular dated 17.09.2024, which likely sets a monetary threshold for pursuing appeals, and the tax effect in this particular appeal being below that threshold. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The substantial question of law, if any was formulated, was kept open. The department was granted liberty to move an appropriate application for revival if the need arises. No specific findings on the merits of the original dispute were made.

The Tribunal granted the revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning was based on the tax effect being below Rupees Two Crores and the applicability of the CBDT circular dated 17.09.2024. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the formulated substantial question of law is kept open and that the department is at liberty to move an appropriate application for revival if the need arises. No specific issue was left undecided as the appeal was withdrawn.

The High Court permitted the appellant (revenue) to withdraw the appeal. The reason for withdrawal was the tax effect being below Rupees Two Crores, as per a CBDT circular dated 17.09.2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court explicitly stated that the formulated substantial question of law is kept open. This implies that no decision on the merits of the case was made. The department was granted liberty to move an appropriate application for revival if the need arises in the future. The judgment does not provide any reasoning on the merits of the original dispute.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below Rupees Two Crores. In view of the CBDT circular dated 17.09.2024, the learned counsel for the appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the formulated substantial question of law is kept open. Furthermore, the department was granted liberty to move an appropriate application for revival if the need arises.

The High Court granted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the formulated substantial question of law is kept open. Furthermore, the department was granted liberty to move an appropriate application for revival of the appeal in case the need arises. No decision on the merits of the case was made.

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning provided is that the appellant (revenue) sought permission to withdraw the appeal in view of the CBDT circular dated 17.09.2024, and the tax effect in the appeal being below Rupees Two Crores. The Tribunal granted this permission and disposed of the appeal accordingly. The ratio decidendi is that appeals can be withdrawn by the revenue if they fall below the threshold stipulated by CBDT circulars, especially when the tax effect is minimal. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn. The substantial question of law formulated in the appeal has been kept open, and the department is at liberty to move an application for revival if the need arises.

The High Court, without commenting on the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition. Taking into account the interim protection granted to the petitioner since 2020 and the significant delay of over four years in deciding the appeal, the Court directed the first Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The Court also ordered that the interim order, if any, shall continue until the appeal is decided. The principle established is that undue delay in adjudicating appeals, even with interim protection, warrants judicial intervention to ensure timely resolution.

The High Court, without commenting on the merits of the case, acknowledged the significant delay in deciding the petitioner's appeal. Taking into account that interim protection had been in favour of the petitioner since 2020 and that the appeal had remained undecided for over four years, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The operative direction was for the first Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of the order. The Court also stipulated that any existing interim order would continue until the appeal was decided. No specific issue was left undecided; the court focused on procedural relief.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below Rupees Two Crores. In view of the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 17.09.2024, the learned counsel for the appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The formulated substantial question of law was kept open. The Department was granted liberty to move an application for revival if the matter was not covered under the circular.

The High Court found that there was no evidence of the appellant being served with notice for the hearing. Consequently, the non-appearance and failure to file the condonation application were considered bonafide.

The Tribunal dismissed the present appeal as non-maintainable. This decision was based on the joint submission of the learned counsel for the parties that the issue was covered by a prior judgment of a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in CIT-I Vs. Satish Kumar Agarwal (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 8/2021), decided on 27.09.2024. The dismissal was specifically stated to be in view of Circular 9 of 2024. The Tribunal explicitly kept the proposed substantial questions of law open. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.

The Tribunal, in view of the joint submission by the learned counsel for both parties, dismissed the present appeal as non-maintainable. The reasoning was based on the concession that the issue was covered by the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 8/2021, decided on 27.09.2024, and in light of Circular 9 of 2024. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the proposed substantial questions of law were kept open. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. The judgment also noted that if any interference by the Hon'ble Apex Court occurs against the aforementioned order, it shall be open for the appellant to seek revival by moving an appropriate application. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on maintainability.

The High Court held that it was not inclined to proceed further with the writ petition. The court reasoned that since the petitioner had filed a statutory appeal, and all grounds raised in the writ petition could be examined by the Appellate Authority in that appeal, there was no need for the High Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was granted the liberty to raise all available grounds in the statutory appeal. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided; the court declined to decide the merits of the case due to the alternative remedy.

The High Court held that it was not inclined to proceed further with the writ petition. The reasoning was that the statutory appeal mechanism available to the petitioner was capable of addressing all the grounds raised in the writ petition. The court explicitly stated that the petitioner was free to raise all available grounds in the appeal to challenge the assessment order. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue their remedies through the statutory appeal process. No specific issue was left undecided; the court chose not to exercise its writ jurisdiction due to the availability of an alternative remedy.

The Tribunal held that Section 275(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, creates a bar based on limitation and does not impose a complete embargo on the initiation of penalty proceedings merely upon the filing of an appeal. The provision, as per a literal reading, bars proceedings if they are not initiated within the prescribed period of limitation, not the initiation itself. Therefore, the assessee's submission that filing an appeal automatically bars penalty proceedings was rejected. Regarding the alternative submission, the Tribunal found no difficulty in holding that the remedy under Section 220(6) of the Act becomes available as soon as any demand is issued against the petitioner. The Tribunal noted that while the Appellate Authority may not stay the demand directly, the mechanism under Section 220(6) is available to the assessee upon issuance of notices. The writ remedy was deemed unnecessary as the petitioner has an adequate remedy under the law. The petitioner was advised to approach the appropriate authority when demand notices are issued. The writ petition was dismissed.

The High Court held that Section 275(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, creates a bar based on limitation and does not impose a complete embargo on the initiation of penalty proceedings upon the mere filing of an appeal. The provision is concerned with the time limit for passing the penalty order, not the initiation of proceedings. Therefore, the submission that penalty proceedings must be kept in abeyance solely because an appeal is pending was rejected. Regarding the availability of a remedy, the Court found no difficulty in holding that the remedy under Section 220(6) of the Act becomes available as soon as any demand is issued against the petitioner. The Court noted that while the Appellate Authority may not stay the demand under the assessment order, the petitioner can invoke Section 220(6) by making an appropriate application before the Assessing Officer for a stay once demand notices are issued. The Court concluded that the writ remedy need not be invoked at this stage as the petitioner has a remedy under the law. The petitioner was left open to approach the appropriate authority at the appropriate stage when demand notices are issued.

The High Court held that no relief could be granted in the writ petition without the petitioner challenging the assessment order passed on 21.05.2023. The Court reasoned that the assessment order is a subsequent development that has not been brought under challenge, either by way of appeal or any other petition. Therefore, the writ petition, as it stood, was not maintainable for granting any relief. The Court dismissed the petition but granted the petitioner liberty to challenge the assessment order in an appropriate forum as permissible under the law. The specific grounds urged in the writ petition were not decided on merits due to the procedural deficiency.

The High Court considered the submission of the petitioner that the writ petition was filed due to the Appellate Tribunal not being functional. Since the Tribunal had become functional during the pendency of the writ petition, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal. The Court further directed that if the petitioner approaches the Tribunal within 60 days from the date of the order, the Tribunal shall decide the matter on its merits without considering the issue of limitation. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court held that the issuance of the demand notice on 12.12.2019, prior to the generation of its DIN on 13.12.2019, and the assessment order dated 17.12.2019, which was also issued without a valid DIN at the time of its original issuance (though a DIN was generated later), constituted a clear violation of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The Court found that the circular mandates the quoting of a computer-generated DIN for all communications issued on or after October 1, 2019. Consequently, the assessment order dated 17.12.2019 was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded back to the assessing authority to decide the case afresh, ensuring due consideration of Circular No. 19/2019 and affording the parties a proper opportunity of hearing. The parties were directed to appear before the authority in the second week of January 2025. The Court did not explicitly decide on the issues related to jurisdiction, natural justice, or the validity of the demand and penalty notices in isolation, but rather addressed the procedural defect concerning the DIN.

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The decision was based on the submission made by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect involved in the case was below the threshold limit of ₹2,00,00,000/- as per the circular dated 17.09.2024. Furthermore, the Revenue's counsel confirmed that the subject matter of the appeal did not fall under any of the exceptions provided in the said circular. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of on the grounds of low tax effect, without delving into the merits of the ITAT's order. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the appeal was dismissed on a preliminary ground.

The Tribunal granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal noted that the formulated/proposed substantial question of law was kept open. Furthermore, the department was granted liberty to move an appropriate application for revival of the appeal if the need arose in the future. No decision was made on the merits of the case.

The appellant, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, sought permission to withdraw the appeal on the grounds that the tax effect was below Rupees Two Crores, citing a circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 17.09.2024. The High Court granted this permission and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The formulated or proposed substantial question of law was expressly kept open. The department was granted liberty to move an appropriate application for revival if the need arose.

The Tribunal granted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning provided was based on the tax effect being below Rupees Two Crores and the applicability of the CBDT circular dated 17.09.2024. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The formulated/proposed substantial question of law was kept open, and the department was granted liberty to move an appropriate application for revival if the need arose. No decision was made on the merits of any substantive issue.

The Tribunal allowed the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeals. The reasoning provided is that the tax effect in the appeals was below Rupees Two Crores, and in view of the CBDT circular dated 17.09.2024, the learned counsel for the appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The formulated/proposed substantial question of law was expressly kept open. The department was granted liberty to move appropriate applications for revival if the need arises.

The Tribunal (High Court) allowed the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning provided was based on the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) circular dated 17.09.2024, which likely sets monetary limits for filing appeals, and the fact that the tax effect in this particular appeal was below Rupees Two Crores. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The formulated substantial question of law was kept open, and the department was granted liberty to move an appropriate application for revival if the need arose. No decision on the merits of the case was made.

The Tribunal (High Court) allowed the appeals to be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the appellant's (Revenue's) request to withdraw the appeals due to the tax effect being below Rupees Two Crores, as per the CBDT circular dated 17.09.2024. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn. The Tribunal also explicitly stated that the formulated/proposed substantial question of law is kept open, and the department is at liberty to move appropriate applications for revival if the need arises. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original dispute.

The Tribunal granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the formulated/proposed substantial question of law is kept open. Furthermore, the department was granted liberty to move an appropriate application for revival of the appeal if the need arises in the future. No decision on the merits of the case was rendered.

The High Court held that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice or statutory provisions of the E-assessment Scheme, 2019. The Court found that all notices were sent to the email address disclosed by the assessee in his ITR for Assessment Year 2018-19, which was the Chartered Accountant's email. The Scheme permits service on the email address available in the last filed ITR. The argument that emails landed in spam/junk folders was considered a vague and self-serving excuse, especially since the assessee acknowledged receiving communication about the order itself on the same email address. The Court noted that the assessee's case was not that he could not file a reply due to the COVID period despite service, but rather that he was not served at all, which was found to be untrue. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal within three months, with the appeal to be decided on merits without considering the limitation period. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider all explanations regarding the additions. The petitioner's prayer for waiver of pre-deposit was also to be given serious consideration.

The Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, accepted the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner had stated that the writ petition had become infructuous due to subsequent events. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition on this basis. The specific subsequent events that rendered the petition infructuous are not detailed in the judgment. No decision was made on the merits of the original challenge, as the petition was disposed of on a procedural ground. The ratio decidendi is that if a party to a writ petition submits that it has become infructuous, the court may accept this submission and dispose of the petition accordingly without delving into the substantive issues.

The Tribunal noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner wished to withdraw the present writ petition. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. All pending applications were also disposed of. No decision on the merits of the case was made. The principle that can be cited is that a party has the right to withdraw their petition, and upon such withdrawal, the petition is dismissed accordingly. No specific issues were decided on substantive legal grounds.

The High Court held that the writ petition has become infructuous. The reasoning is based on the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, who stated that subsequent events and a favorable order from the jurisdictional assessing authority dated 30.08.2024 rendered the petition unnecessary. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition as having become infructuous. Any pending applications were also disposed of. No specific issue regarding the merits of the original challenge was decided. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition as infructuous.