Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur v. M/s. Unitech Power Transmission Ltd., Nagpur

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Revenue tendered a pursis dated 5 December 2025 in ITA 8/2021, stating that the matter did not fall within an exception and was below the permissible limit, and requested withdrawal. The source uses the wording “tax evasion” in that submission.

Source: PDF p. 1

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The pursis was taken on record and the withdrawal request accepted. The order gives no numerical tax amount or limit, circular number, exception analysis or assessment year.

Source: PDF p. 1

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn. Court fee was to be refunded in accordance with the rules.

Source: PDF p. 1

4. OUTCOME

Revenue’s appeal ended by withdrawal; the substantive tax questions were not adjudicated.

Source: PDF p. 1

5. Expert Comments

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

Preserve the recorded submission without reconstructing it

The source uses “tax evasion” and states that it is below the permissible limit and outside an exception. That wording is retained as a source feature, not converted into a finding of evasion or a quantified tax-effect calculation.

Source: PDF p. 1

Withdrawal is not approval of the merits

The Court accepted the procedural request. It did not test the underlying tax issue or affirm a particular substantive rationale.

Source: PDF p. 1

Refund concerns court fee

The refund direction is governed by the applicable court-fee rules. It is not an order refunding income tax, interest or a disputed demand.

Source: PDF p. 1