[aaykarbhavan] Low Tax Effect Circular: Dept To Show Why Appeal Not Be Dismissed: Bombay High Court

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgement is available for download at itatonline.org.

CIT vs. Sevak Pharma Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

Low Tax Effect Circular: Dept to show why appeal should not be dismissed

 

The department filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that the tax involved in the appeal was less than the monetary limit of Rs. 3 lakhs prescribed in CBDT Instruction No.3/2011 dated 9.2.2011. The Tribunal followed Madhukar Inamdar (HUF) 318 ITR 149 (Bom) where it was held that the CBDT Instructions fixing monetary limit for filing an appeal to the Tribunal would apply even to pending cases. The Department then filed a MA before the Tribunal pointing out that in CIT v. Surya Herbal the Supreme Court had held that the CBDT Instruction No.3/2011 would not apply ipso facto and would not apply where the matter has cascading effect or raises a common principle involving a large number of matters. The Tribunal dismissed the MA. On appeal by the department to the High Court, HELD dismissing the appeal:

 

The grievance of the Revenue is that the Tribunal ought to have entertained the appeal by following the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Surya Herbal Ltd. However, the revenue has not been able to point out before us any of circumstance as laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Surya Herbal Ltd being applicable to this case which would lead to non application of CBDT instructions No.3/2011. In the above circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law (it was also held following Chem Amit 272 ITR 397 that an appeal u/s 260A cannot be filed to challenge an order dismissing a MA)

 

See also Varsha Dilip Kohle where the same view was taken. There is a raging contrary controversy over whether the CBDT Instruction applies to pending appeals or not. In Virgo Marketing (SC) the matter was left open. In Sumangaladevi, the K'taka HC has dissented from its own view in Ranka & Ranka. In Shambhubhai (Guj), the matter has been referred to a Full Bench. See also CBDT's letter dated 02.09.2011

(Click Here To Read More)

 

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

CIT vs. Jagtar Singh Chawla (P&H High Court)

S. 54F: Deposit in capital gains account scheme by s. 139(4) due date sufficient

__._,_.___

receive alert on mobile, subscribe to SMS Channel named "aaykarbhavan"
[COST FREE]
SEND "on aaykarbhavan" TO 9870807070 FROM YOUR MOBILE.

To receive the mails from this group send message to aaykarbhavan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___