Rajasthan High Court Judgments — 2024

The Tribunal granted the appellant'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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 on the merits of the case was made.

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below Rupees Two Crores, and in view of the CBDT circular dated 17.09.2024, the appellant sought permission to withdraw. 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 arose.

The Tribunal permitted the appeal to be withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the appellant's (revenue's) submission that the tax effect in the appeal was below Rupees Two Crores, and in light of the CBDT circular dated 17.09.2024, the revenue sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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 arises. No finding was given on the merits of the case.

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 Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 substantial question of law, which was formulated, was kept open. The department was granted liberty to move an appropriate application for revival if the need arises.

The Tribunal granted the appellant'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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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. The department was granted liberty to move an appropriate application for revival if the need arises. No decision on the merits of the case was made.

The Tribunal permitted the appellant (revenue) to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning provided was based on the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 17.09.2024, which allows for withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below Rupees Two Crores. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in this particular appeal was indeed below that threshold. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the formulated substantial question of law is kept open, and the department is at liberty to move an appropriate application for revival if the need arises. No other issues were decided on merits.

The High Court granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court noted that the formulated substantial question of law, if any, was kept open. 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 High Court granted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the formulated 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 Tribunal granted the appellant'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 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 arose. No decision was made on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal (High Court) allowed the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning was based on the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) circular dated 17.09.2024, which permits withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below Rupees Two Crores. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The substantial question of law, if any formulated, was kept open. 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 High Court allowed the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning was based on the CBDT circular dated 17.09.2024, which indicated that the tax effect in the appeal was below the threshold specified in the circular, making it eligible for withdrawal. The Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The formulated substantial question of law was expressly 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 the case.

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 (Revenue) sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The substantial question of law formulated in the appeal 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 the case.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeals was below Rupees Two Crores. In view of a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 17.09.2024, the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) sought permission to withdraw the appeals. The Tribunal, accordingly, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The substantial question of law formulated in the appeals was kept open. The department was granted liberty to move an appropriate application for revival if the need arose.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeals 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 appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals 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 was made on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal permitted the Revenue to withdraw the appeals. The reasoning was based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect in the appeals was below Rupees Two Crores, and in view of the CBDT circular dated 17.09.2024, the Revenue sought permission to withdraw. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the formulated substantial question of law is kept open. The department was granted liberty to move an appropriate application for revival if the need arises. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial question of law.

The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the impugned order of the ITAT was passed without granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant, thus violating principles of natural justice. The Court reasoned that the appellant had filed an adjournment application due to unavoidable circumstances (examinations), and its dismissal led to an ex-parte order. The ratio decidendi is that an appellate tribunal must ensure a fair hearing before passing an order, and ex-parte decisions based on dismissed adjournment applications without proper consideration can be set aside. The Court quashed and set aside the ITAT's ex-parte order and remanded the matter back to the ITAT for a fresh decision on merits after granting an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Parties were directed to appear before the ITAT on 25.11.2024. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal granted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning provided is solely based on the Central Board of Direct Taxes circular dated 17.09.2024, which indicated that the tax effect in the appeal was below the threshold specified in the circular, making it eligible for withdrawal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, 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 was made on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal (High Court) allowed the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals. The reasoning was based on the CBDT circular dated 17.09.2024, which likely sets monetary limits for filing appeals, and the fact that the tax effect in these appeals was below Rupees Two Crores. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The substantial question of law formulated in the appeals was expressly kept open, and the department was granted liberty to move an appropriate application for revival if the need arises.

The Tribunal permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The substantial question of law, if any, was kept open. The department was granted liberty to move an appropriate application for revival if the need arises. The reasoning for withdrawal was based on the tax effect being below Rupees Two Crores, as per a CBDT circular. No decision on the merits of the case was made.

The Tribunal granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The substantial question of law, which was formulated but not detailed, was kept open. The department was granted liberty to move an appropriate application for revival if the need arose. The reasoning for the withdrawal was based on the CBDT circular and the tax effect. No decision on the merits of the case was made.

The Tribunal permitted the appellant (revenue) to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning provided is based on the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) circular dated 17.09.2024, which likely sets monetary limits for appeals. Since the tax effect in the present appeal was below Rupees Two Crores, the appellant was allowed to withdraw it. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the formulated substantial question of law is kept open, and the department is at liberty to move an appropriate application for revival if the need arises. No decision on the merits of the case was made.

The Tribunal granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning provided is solely based on the tax effect being below Rupees Two Crores and a circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 17.09.2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the formulated substantial question of law is kept open. Furthermore, the department is granted liberty to move an appropriate application for revival of the appeal if the need arises. No decision on the merits of the case was made.

The Tribunal permitted the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning provided is based on the tax effect in the appeal being below Rupees Two Crores, and the appellant (revenue) seeking permission to withdraw in view of the CBDT circular dated 17.09.2024. The Tribunal's decision is to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The substantial question of law, if any was formulated, has been kept open. The department is granted liberty to move an appropriate application for revival if the need arises. No specific finding on the merits of the case was made.

The Tribunal did not decide any substantive issues on the merits of the appeal. The appellant's counsel, citing the CBDT circular dated 17.09.2024 regarding the tax effect being below Rupees Two Crores, sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Court granted this permission and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The formulated substantial question of law, if any, was kept open, and the department was granted liberty to move an appropriate application for revival if the need arose. No finding was reached on any specific issue, and therefore, no ratio decidendi can be extracted for future citation on merits.

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 (Revenue) sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, 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 arises. No decision on the merits of the case was made.

The Tribunal granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning provided is based on the tax effect being below Rupees Two Crores and the applicability of the CBDT circular dated 17.09.2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the formulated substantial question of law is kept open, and the department is at liberty to move an appropriate application for revival if the need arises. No decision on the merits of the case was made.

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the Income Tax Appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning provided is that the counsel appearing for the appellant (Revenue) stated that they do not wish to press the appeal. This decision is based on the tax effect involved in the matter being less than Rs. 2 crore, as stipulated in Circular No. 09/2024 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance dated 17.09.2024. The Court explicitly stated that in view of the withdrawal of the appeal, no substantial question of law is being decided. Therefore, no operative directions for remand or deletion were issued, and no relief was granted on merits.

The High Court held that the issues arising from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are concluded against the Revenue. This finding is based on the concession made by the Revenue's counsel, who admitted that the matter is covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Director of Income-Tax, New Delhi vs. Mitsubishi Corporation [2021 SCC OnLine SC 736]. The Court accepted this concession. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax was dismissed. No specific relief was granted to the assessee as the appeal itself was dismissed. No issues were left undecided.

The High Court dismissed the appeal based on the CBDT's circular enhancing the monetary limits for filing appeals. The court noted that if the appeal falls under an exception, revival can be sought.

The Tribunal held that the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. The reasoning was based on two admitted facts: firstly, that the petitioner had indeed filed a detailed reply on 17.03.2023, which was uploaded on the Income Tax Portal; and secondly, that this reply was not taken into consideration by the assessing officer, as evidenced by the recital in the impugned order stating that no reply had been filed. The Tribunal found that the non-consideration of the petitioner's reply vitiated the entire decision-making process. Consequently, the impugned order dated 05.04.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated 05.04.2023 issued under Section 148A(b) were set aside. The Department was directed to consider the reply filed by the petitioner on 17.03.2023 and take an appropriate decision in accordance with the law. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not commented upon the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the issue raised in the writ petition was squarely covered by the common order dated 19.03.2024 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and other connected writ petitions. Consequently, the petition was allowed in similar terms as the cited case, with liberty granted as stated in that order. The reasoning is based on the joint submission of the parties that the present case is identical to the precedent. No specific findings on the merits of the petitioner's case were recorded, as the decision was based on the applicability of the prior judgment. No issues were expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the addition for excess stock was not justified as there was no quantitative difference and the valuation difference arose from using current market price versus cost price in the books. No substantial question of law was found to be involved.

The Tribunal (High Court) granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The substantial question of law, if any was formulated, was kept open. The Department was granted liberty to move an application for revival if the matter was not covered by the aforementioned circular. No decision on the merits of the case was rendered.

The High Court directed the Income Tax Department to release the seized cash along with interest. The interest was to be calculated at 0.5% per month for a specific period and 6% plus an additional 3% for the subsequent period until the cash was released.

The Tribunal (High Court) allowed the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning provided is that the tax effect in the appeal was below Rupees Two Crores, and the appellant sought permission to withdraw based on the Central Board of Direct Taxes circular dated 17.09.2024. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The formulated substantial question of law was kept open, and the Department was granted liberty to move an application for revival if the matter is not covered under the circular. No decision was made on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal took the pursis filed by the learned Counsel for the appellant (Revenue) on record. The pursis stated that tax evasion does not fall in exception and is below the permissible limit. Accordingly, the Revenue sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The operative direction is that the appeal is disposed of as withdrawn, and the court fee shall be refunded in accordance with rules. No specific issue was decided on merits.

The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's submission regarding the revised monetary limits for filing appeals. Based on the new circular, the appeal was disposed of as the tax effect was below the prescribed threshold.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as not maintainable. The Court distinguished between 'tax not quantifiable' and 'tax not quantified'. The Revenue's contention was found to lack merit. The Court noted the assessee's submission that even in an extreme scenario, the disallowance of deduction would be approximately Rs. 3 crores, resulting in a tax effect of approximately Rs. 1 crore. In light of Circular 9 of 2024, which governs the maintainability of appeals based on tax effect, the Court concluded that the appeal was not maintainable. The proposed substantial question of law was expressly left open.

The Tribunal held that Circular No. 9 of 2024, while enhancing monetary limits, explicitly states in Paragraph 5 that it shall apply to appeals to be filed henceforth and also to appeals pending before the Supreme Court, High Courts, and the Tribunal. This makes the monetary limits and the exceptions in Paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of Circular No. 5 of 2024 applicable to all pending appeals. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's contention that the circular only gave retrospective effect to the monetary limit, finding it would require adding words to the plain language of Paragraph 5. The reliance on exceptions from the superseded Circular No. 3 of 2018 was also found unsustainable. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable in view of Circular No. 9 of 2024. The proposed substantial questions of law were kept open.

The Tribunal held that Circular No. 9 of 2024 applies to pending appeals. The court found the revenue's contention that the circular only grants retrospective effect to the monetary limit to be without merit, as it would require adding words to the clear and plain language of Paragraph 5 of Circular No. 9 of 2024. The Tribunal also rejected the reliance on exceptions in Circular No. 3 of 2018, stating that Circular No. 3 of 2018 was superseded by Circular No. 5 of 2024, and the exceptions from Circular No. 5, along with enhanced monetary limits in Circular No. 9 of 2024, were made applicable to pending appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable in view of Circular No. 9 of 2024. The proposed substantial questions of law were expressly left open.