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. Gemini Distilleries (Supreme Court)

CIT vs. Gemini Distilleries (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 12, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 1, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
Low Tax Effect Circular: The CBDT cannot issue any circular having retrospective operation. Consequently, instruction/circular issued on 9.2.2011 directing withdrawal of low tax effect appeals applies only to appeals filed after that date and not to pending appeals. The fact that the CBDT itself vide Circular dated 10.12.2015 directed that the instruction to withdraw low tax effect appeals will apply retrospectively to pending appeals has no bearing

The question raised in this batch of Appeals is as to whether the instructions/circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on 9.2.2011 will have retrospective operation or not.

This Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII, New Delhi v. Suman Dhamija (Civil Appeal Nos.4919-4920/2015) has held that instructions/circular dated 9.2.11 is not retrospective in nature and they shall not govern cases which have been filed before 2011, and that, the same will govern only such cases which are filed after the issuance of the aforesaid instructions dated 9.2.2011.

Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon circular dated 10th December, 2015 and specifically relied upon paragraph 10.

We are of the considered opinion that the central board of direct taxes cannot issue any circular having retrospective operation. Respectfully following the above decision, we allow the instant Appeals.

The impugned order passed by the High Court dated 2.11.2011 in ITA No.887/2006 is set aside. The matter(s) is/are remitted back to the High Court for re-adjudication on merits and in accordance with law.

The Civil Appeals are allowed in the above terms.

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Suman Dhamija (Supreme Court) 

    The appeals and review petitions preferred by the department before the High Court, were disposed of on the basis of the instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 9.2.2011. It is not a matter of dispute, that all the appeals were preferred prior to 2011, whereas,…
  2. Berger Paints India Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Capital employed in the business of the company is the aggregate of three distinct components, namely, share capital, debentures and long term borrowings as on the dates relevant under sub-clauses(i) and (ii) of Clause(b) of the explanation extracted above. The term ‘long term borrowing’ has been defined in clause…
  3. CIT vs. Rekha Bai (Supreme Court) 

    The Department has failed to bring on record any material to the contrary except the seized documents which, in our considered opinion, could not absolve the Department or give any right to negate the view taken by the first Appellate Authority and the Tribunal. So far as the income…
  4. CIT vs. Equinox Solution Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court) 

    In our considered opinion, the case of the respondent (assessee) does not fall within the four corners of Section 50 (2) of the Act. Section 50 (2) applies to a case where any block of assets are transferred by the assessee but where the entire running business with assets…
  5. CIT vs. Travancore Cochin Udyoga Mandal (Supreme Court) 

    The question as to whether the fixation of rent and its payment is statutory or contractual and, if so, its effect while claiming deduction under the Income Tax Act and, if so, in which year of assessment is a mixed question of law and fact. In our considered opinion,…

Leave a Reply

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

*