Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › CIT vs. Delhi Race Club Ltd (Delhi High Court)

CIT vs. Delhi Race Club Ltd (Delhi High Court)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 11, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (delhi_cbdt_circular_tax_effect_.pdf)


CBDT Circular on monetary limits for filing appeals applies to pending appeals

The Department filed an appeal in the year 2008 where the tax effect was less than Rs. 10 lakhs. The question arose whether in view of Instruction No. 3/2011 Dated 9-2-2011 the appeal was maintainable. HELD dismissing the appeal:

In view of CIT vs. P. S. Jain & Co (included in file) which followed Pithwa Engineering 276 ITR 519 (Bom) & Ashok Patel 317 ITR 386 (MP) and where it was held that the CBDT Circular imposing limits on the filing of appeals by the department applied to pending appeals, Instruction No. 3/2011 Dated 9-2-2011 also applied to pending appeals and as the tax effect was less than Rs. 10 lakhs, the appeal was not maintainable.

Note: A contrary view has been taken in CIT vs. M/s Varindera Construction Co (P&H High Court – Full Bench)

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Narendra Desai (Bombay High Court) 

    Receipt for agreeing to refrain from carrying on a competing business under a restrictive covenant is a capital receipt and is not chargeable to tax either as a revenue receipt or as a capital gain as ss. 28(va) and 55(2)(a) … CIT vs. Narendra Desai (Bombay High Court)…
  2. CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues (Bombay High Court) 

    The deletion of the second proviso to s. 43B by the Finance Act 2003 wef 1.4.2004 cannot be treated as a retrospective amendment and contributions towards PF beyond the period stipulated in s 36(1)(va) are not allowable deductions. Note: The … CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues (Bombay High Court)…
  3. Aatur Holdings (Bombay High Court) 

    (1) Though the assessee company was the defacto owner of the shares, the dividends could not be said to have accrued to it as it was not the dejure owner of the shares. (2) If there is an accounting standard (AS-9), the same has to be accepted in the…
  4. CIT vs. Siemens AG (Bombay High Court) 

    Amounts received towards reimbursement of expenses can, under no circumstances, be regarded as a revenue Receipt and is not chargeable to income-tax;Read more ›
  5. Sahney Kirkwood vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) 

    Where the question arose whether in respect of an appeal admitted u/s 260A, the High Court has power to grant stay of recovery of outstanding demand, HELD:
     
    (i) S. 260A provides that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to appeals to the High Court shall apply; 

    (ii)…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*