{"id":2829,"date":"2011-03-11T15:19:58","date_gmt":"2011-03-11T09:49:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=2829"},"modified":"2011-03-11T15:19:58","modified_gmt":"2011-03-11T09:49:58","slug":"cit-vs-delhi-race-club-ltd-delhi-high-court-cbdt-circular-on-monetary-limits-for-filing-appeals-applies-to-pending-appeals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-delhi-race-club-ltd-delhi-high-court-cbdt-circular-on-monetary-limits-for-filing-appeals-applies-to-pending-appeals\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT vs. Delhi Race Club Ltd (Delhi High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=376\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=376&varname2=delhi_cbdt_circular_tax_effect_.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (delhi_cbdt_circular_tax_effect_.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nCBDT Circular on monetary limits for filing appeals applies to pending appeals<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>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 <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/info\/index.php\/revised-limits-for-filing-appeals-by-department-before-appellate-authorities\/\">Instruction No. 3\/2011 Dated 9-2-2011<\/a><\/strong> the appeal was maintainable. HELD dismissing the appeal:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>In view of <strong>CIT vs. P. S. Jain &#038; Co<\/strong> (included in file) which followed <strong>Pithwa Engineering<\/strong> 276 ITR 519 (Bom) &#038; <strong>Ashok Patel<\/strong> 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, <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/info\/index.php\/revised-limits-for-filing-appeals-by-department-before-appellate-authorities\/\">Instruction No. 3\/2011 Dated 9-2-2011<\/a><\/strong> also applied to pending appeals and as the tax effect was less than Rs. 10 lakhs, the appeal was not maintainable. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<div class=\"journal2\">\n<strong>Note<\/strong>: A contrary view has been taken in <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/cit-vs-ms-varindera-construction-co-ph-high-court-full-bench-cbdt-circular-on-monetary-limits-for-filing-appeals-does-not-apply-to-pending-appeals\/\">CIT vs. M\/s Varindera Construction Co (P&#038;H High Court \u2013 Full Bench)<\/a><\/strong>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In view of <strong>Pithwa Engineering<\/strong> 276 ITR 519 (Bom) &#038; <strong>Ashok Patel<\/strong> 317 ITR 386 (MP) followed in <strong>CIT vs. P. S. Jain &#038; Co<\/strong> (included in file) where it was held that the CBDT Circular imposing limits on the filing of appeals by the department applied to pending appeals, <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/info\/index.php\/revised-limits-for-filing-appeals-by-department-before-appellate-authorities\/\">Instruction No. 3\/2011 Dated 9-2-2011<\/a><\/strong> also applied to pending appeals and as the tax effect was less than Rs. Rs. 10 lakhs, the appeal was not maintainable. <\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-delhi-race-club-ltd-delhi-high-court-cbdt-circular-on-monetary-limits-for-filing-appeals-applies-to-pending-appeals\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2829","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2829","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2829"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2829\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2829"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2829"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2829"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}