| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
August 17, 2012 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
Low Tax Effect Circular is retrospective & applies to pending appeals
The department filed an appeal in June 2000, the tax effect of which was less than Rs. 10 lakhs. The assessee claimed, relying on Instruction No. 3/2011 dated 9.2.2011, that as the tax effect was less than Rs. 10 lakhs, the appeal was not maintainable. The department opposed the plea on the ground that the said Instruction was prospective and did not apply to appeals filed before 9.2.2011. HELD by the High Court dismissing the appeal:
S. 268A was inserted by the Finance Act 2008 w.r.e.f. 1.4.1999 to reduce litigation in small cases and regulate the right of Revenue to file or not to file appeal. Instruction no.3/2011 dated 9.2.2011 has been issued by the CBDT pursuant to this power. Though clause 11 provides that the instruction would apply to appeals filed on or after 9.2.2011 and appeals filed that date would be governed by the instructions operative at the time the appeal was filed, in a number of cases, it has been interpreted to mean that the monetary limits specified in the Instruction would apply to pending appeals as well (Vijaya V. Kavekar (Bom) followed (included in file).
Related Posts:
- PCIT vs. M. J. Exports Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) All this effort and time would have been saved if the Tribunal had made specific reference to contrary decisions or not stated so in the absence of referring to the citations. Therefore, we would request the Tribunal to be specific about the decisions and make a mention of the citation…
- CST vs. Crescendo Associates (Bombay High Court) The service of maintenance, management or repair, rendered by any person to any other person is a taxable service but in the context and backdrop in which the issue arises before us, we do not think that a taxable service is rendered. The Revenue does not wish to take into…
- Ventura Textiles Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) Concealment of particulars of income was not the charge against the appellant, the charge being furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As discussed above, it is trite that penalty cannot be imposed for alleged breach of one limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act while penalty proceedings were initiated for breach…
- Tata Communications Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) Although the respondents purport to contend that proper procedure had been followed, record does not bear that there had been any communication made to the petitioner as to its submissions being not acceptable before or at the time of making the adjustment. Decisions in the cases of “A. N. Shaikh”,…
- M/s. J. S. & M. F. Builders vs. A. K. Chauhan (Bombay High Court) According to the Assessing Officer, assessee had erred in offering to tax ‘capital gains’ in the year when the individual flats were sold whereas such ‘capital gains’ could be assessed to tax only when the land is trasferred to the co-operative society formed by the flat purchasers. If the assessee…
- PCIT vs. ITAT (Bombay High Court) The use of the expression “may” in the aforesaid provision is clearly indicative of the legislative intent that the limitation period of six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed is not to be construed in such a manner that there can not be…
Leave a Reply