High Court of Himachal Pradesh · Procedural orders

Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla v. H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

ITA 62/2009 and 16/2010 ·

Both Revenue appeals withdrawn following the CBDT notification dated 17 September 2024.

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

In ITA 62/2009 and ITA 16/2010 against H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Revenue counsel stated that he had instructions to withdraw both appeals in light of the CBDT notification dated 17 September 2024. The Court did not state the notification number, tax effects or assessment years.

Source: Caption and paragraph 1; PDF pp.1–2

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The Court acted on counsel’s withdrawal instructions. It offered no discussion of the substantive issues in either appeal and did not reproduce any monetary-limit calculation.

Source: Paragraph 1; PDF pp.1–2

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

Both appeals were disposed of on withdrawal. Pending applications were also disposed of.

Source: Paragraphs 1–2; PDF p.2

4. OUTCOME

Revenue ended both appeals without obtaining a merits ruling. The common procedural result does not supply a substantive tax precedent for the Corporation.

Source: Paragraphs 1–2; PDF p.2

5. Expert Comments

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

The source supports withdrawal under the cited notification

The date and issuing CBDT authority are explicit; a circular number and exact tax-effect threshold are not. Those missing details should not be inserted as if the Court recorded them. The judgment’s practical value is proof of how these two appeals concluded.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.2

Withdrawal does not decide the underlying tax questions

The order contains no evaluation of either appeal’s grounds. It cannot establish that a deduction or exemption was correctly allowed, even though Revenue’s challenge has ended. The relevant lower orders remain necessary for any substantive analysis of the dispute.

Source: PDF p.2

One common order preserves two appeal identities

ITA 62/2009 and ITA 16/2010 are both expressly disposed of. The two supplied source files contain exactly this same complete order; retaining both source references is different from creating a second legal decision. No assessment-year mapping can be recovered from the appeal numbers alone.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.2

Source and verification

Complete source PDF reviewed: 2 physical pages.

Original PDF: 2 pages · SHA-256: a4351fff7ed3ac1503a4e8829c161777c3cc6e287e0ac2bde0f2179b28f8b90f

All 2 original pages read and visually inspected; all five panels audited.

No numbered Income-tax Act provision, assessment year or tax amount is stated in this order.

Subsequent treatment has not been independently verified.

AI disclosure and professional disclaimer

AI-assisted source review. Independent human approval is not represented.

General research only. Expert Comments are editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding. No current-law clearance is claimed.

Additional supplied originals

These copies contain the same complete common order; all docket identities are retained.