Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers and Contractors

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

In ITA 2/2019 against Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers and Contractors, Revenue counsel stated that he had instructions to withdraw the appeal in view of CBDT Circular 9/2024 dated 17 September 2024. The source identifies no assessment year, disputed addition or tax-effect amount.

Source: Caption and paragraph 1; PDF p.1

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The Court took counsel’s statement on record. It did not discuss the appeal grounds, calculate tax effect or determine a substantive tax question.

Source: Paragraphs 1–2; PDF p.1

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn.

Source: Paragraph 2; PDF p.1

4. OUTCOME

Revenue’s challenge in ITA 2/2019 ended on withdrawal. This order is not an independent merits endorsement of the respondent’s tax position.

Source: Paragraphs 1–2; PDF p.1

5. Expert Comments

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

The recorded circular explains the withdrawal

The source connects counsel’s instructions to Circular 9/2024, but gives neither the numerical threshold nor the actual tax effect. It establishes the procedural result in this appeal, not a reusable tax-effect computation or an examination of exceptions under the circular.

Source: PDF p.1

The merits remain outside this decision

No reasoning on an addition, deduction or exemption appears. For substantive advice, the lower decision and grounds of appeal would be needed. The absence of a merits ruling should remain clear even though Revenue has ended its challenge.

Source: PDF p.1

The corrected record remains a withdrawal

The supplied copy records Circular 9/2024 and withdrawal. A separate 4 December 2024 order in OMP 1050/2024 directs correction and uploading of the 23 October judgment. That correction does not turn the withdrawal into a decision on the appeal’s substantive grounds.

Source: PDF p.1