Bajaj Steel Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Nagpur & Anr.

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Bajaj Steel’s Income Tax Appeal 25/2024 was listed with Appeals 22, 23, 24 and 26–34/2024. In view of the order in WP 6800/2024 and connected matters, senior counsel did not press for orders in these thirteen appeals.

Source: PDF p. 1

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The Court recorded that position without reproducing the writ order’s reasoning or deciding the tax issues in these appeals.

Source: PDF p. 1

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

All thirteen appeals were disposed of as not pressed for orders.

Source: PDF p. 1

4. OUTCOME

Procedural disposal on the appellant’s stated position; no independent merits determination in this one-page order.

Source: PDF p. 1

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

The writ order and appeal disposal are separate acts

This order records the consequence of counsel’s position after WP 6800/2024. It does not reproduce or independently adopt every proposition that may appear in the writ proceedings.

Source: PDF p. 1

Retain all thirteen appeal numbers

The lead appeal is 25/2024, with 22–24 and 26–34/2024 connected. Recording only the lead docket would omit the express scope of the disposal.

Source: PDF p. 1

No tax finding follows from not pressing

The source contains no rate, amount, assessment year, exemption or treaty ruling. A substantive victory should not be inferred from this procedural endpoint.

Source: PDF p. 1