HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla v. M/s Beas Valley Power Corporation Ltd.
OMP No.61 of 2020 with Income Tax Appeal No.30 of 2015 ·
Supplied court judgment; no neutral citation stated
Revenue withdrawal application allowed under CBDT Circular 17/2019 dated 8 August 2019; appeal and pending applications dismissed as withdrawn without deciding tax merits.
Division Bench · L. Narayana Swamy · Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1. Facts of the case
In OMP 61/2020, Revenue sought permission to withdraw ITA 30/2015 in view of CBDT Circular 17/2019 dated 8 August 2019. The complete one-page source identifies the respondent but supplies no assessment year, tax-effect computation or underlying assessment issue.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court accepted the circular-based withdrawal request without setting out a monetary threshold or examining a substantive tax question.
3. Judicial decision
The withdrawal application was allowed and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn along with pending applications, if any.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
The identified Revenue appeal ended through withdrawal. No substantive deduction, exemption, addition or quantified refund was adjudicated.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been verified.
The withdrawal application and appeal have one canonical note
OMP 61/2020 is expressly presented within ITA 30/2015; the operative paragraph allows the application and disposes of the appeal together. One canonical publication retains both docket identities rather than counting the application as a second judgment. The complete one-page original also fixes the respondent identity as M/s Beas Valley Power Corporation Ltd., which must not be merged with another taxpayer’s appeal merely because the withdrawal paragraph is similarly worded.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1
The circular is identified, but its figures are not reproduced
The judgment expressly refers to Circular 17/2019 of 8 August 2019. It does not state an exact tax-effect amount, quote a threshold or examine particular exceptions to that policy. The note therefore records the historical circular basis without inventing a numerical computation or claiming that the Court separately ruled on every possible exception. It also makes no representation about the litigation threshold currently applicable to another appeal.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1
The appearance record should not be enlarged into a concession
The appearance section names counsel for the respondent, but the operative paragraph does not attribute a consent statement or substantive concession to that party. The relief follows Revenue’s own request for withdrawal. It should not be characterized as an adjudication against the respondent for non-appearance, an agreed settlement or an admission that a particular tax ground succeeds. The Court grants withdrawal without setting out such findings.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1
No merits holding or extra future-filing liberty is recorded
The source contains no substantial question, assessment year, Tribunal-order date or reasons addressing an addition or deduction. Dismissal as withdrawn does not supply a reasoned High Court endorsement of unidentified lower appellate reasoning. The text also contains no express restoration liberty, fresh-filing permission, limitation protection or costs allocation; those terms should not be imported from other short procedural orders. Later proceedings remain unverified.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1
Original judgment and subsequent status
Read the original judgment / orderFull original read; every original page visually inspected.
Subsequent case status: Appeal, review, recall and stay status has not been independently confirmed.
About this note
Prepared with AI assistance. Read with the original judgment.
General information. Application depends on the facts, statutory provisions, assessment year and jurisdiction.