Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad v. HBL Power Systems Ltd.

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Revenue’s ITTA 34/2022 against HBL Power Systems Ltd challenged the Tribunal’s 23 April 2021 order in ITA 189/Hyd/2017 for AY 2012-13.

Source: PDF p.1, prayer

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

Revenue counsel sought leave to withdraw in view of CBDT Circular 9/2024 dated 17 September 2024. The Court recorded that request without setting out the disputed tax question.

Source: PDF p.2, order

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 5 November 2024.

Source: PDF p.2, operative paragraph

4. OUTCOME

No costs were awarded and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed. The operative order does not expressly reserve restoration or decide any substantive tax issue.

Source: PDF p.2, operative paragraph

5. Expert Comments

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

The Tribunal result is undisturbed, not endorsed on merits

Withdrawal ends this High Court challenge without an examination of the Tribunal’s reasoning. The identified Tribunal order remains the relevant source for the underlying issue; the withdrawal order cannot be cited as independent approval of that reasoning.

Source: PDF pp.1–2, prayer and order

Do not import reservations from neighbouring orders

This order does not contain the exception-based revival liberty found in some other Revenue withdrawal orders. That omission matters when describing what the Court actually granted; no restoration entitlement can be attributed to this text.

Source: PDF p.2, operative paragraph

The recorded circular reference is narrower than a quantified finding

Although counsel invoked Circular 9/2024, the order does not state a tax-effect figure or calculate a threshold. The source supports the stated reason for withdrawal, not a new factual conclusion about the exact disputed tax or the circular’s application in another case.

Source: PDF p.2, order