Loading High Court cases…
166 orders · Page 2 of 4
The High Court was informed that the dispute between the parties has been settled. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous.
The High Court recorded the submission of the appellant's counsel. The appeal was dismissed as it was not pressed by the appellant.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the monetary limits for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the fact that the tax effect was below the monetary limit set by the CBDT for appeals to the High Court.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the dispute between the parties has been settled. Therefore, the appellant did not intend to pursue the appeals further and prayed for their withdrawal.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT's circular enhancing monetary limits for filing appeals to reduce litigation.
The tribunal agreed to close the recovery proceedings due to the meagre amount involved, the difficulty in tracing debtors, and the significant time and effort required. Any amount already recovered by the Official Liquidator is to be deposited in the Common Pool Fund after adjusting expenses.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This dismissal was based on the monetary limits for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the dispute between the parties has been settled. Therefore, the appellant did not intend to pursue the appeals further and prayed for their withdrawal.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT circular that enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals to reduce litigation.
The High Court held that the tax effect in the instant appeal was well below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on a CBDT circular enhancing monetary limits for filing appeals, and the tax effect in this case was below the revised limit.
The Tribunal held that the grounds provided by the appellant for the delay in filing the application were contradictory and not cogent enough to justify retrospective registration. The appellant's awareness of exemption under Section 10(23C)(iii ad) indicated an intentional delay.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was done in accordance with a Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court.
The High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. This was based on the submission by the appellant's counsel that the issues were settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the appellant no longer wished to pursue the appeals.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the monetary limits for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was in terms of the CBDT circular enhancing monetary limits for appeals to reduce litigation.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the CBDT's circular which set monetary limits for filing appeals to reduce litigation.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the monetary limits for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024.
The High Court noted that the appellants (assessees) were not represented by counsel for several hearings. Consequently, the court concluded that the assessees were not interested in pursuing the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed for want of prosecution.
The High Court dismissed the appeal. This was based on a CBDT circular that enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals, and the tax effect in this case was below the prescribed limit.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on revised monetary limits for filing appeals issued by the CBDT.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was done in accordance with the CBDT's circular enhancing monetary limits for appeals to reduce litigation.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT's circular enhancing monetary limits for filing appeals to reduce litigation.
The High Court held that since two interconnected suits were tried together with common evidence and a common judgment, an appeal against only one of the decrees is barred by Section 11 of the CPC. The court noted that the decree in the injunction suit had become final and not appealing it rendered the current appeal not maintainable.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the monetary limits for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024.
The High Court dismissed the appeal. The dismissal was based on the revised monetary limits for filing appeals by the Income Tax Department, as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by the CBDT for filing appeals before the High Court. The Revenue can seek revival if the appeal falls under exceptions mentioned in the circular.