{"id":4419,"date":"2012-03-02T18:27:14","date_gmt":"2012-03-02T18:27:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=4419"},"modified":"2012-03-02T18:47:16","modified_gmt":"2012-03-02T18:47:16","slug":"cit-vs-virgo-marketing-pvt-ltd-supreme-court-high-court-to-consider-whether-low-tax-effect-circular-has-retrospective-effect","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-virgo-marketing-pvt-ltd-supreme-court-high-court-to-consider-whether-low-tax-effect-circular-has-retrospective-effect\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT vs. Virgo Marketing Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=636\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=636&varname2=virgo_marketing_low_tax_effect_circular.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (virgo_marketing_low_tax_effect_circular.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nHigh Court to consider whether Low Tax Effect Circular has retrospective effect<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Department filed an appeal u\/s 260A in 2006 where the tax effect was less than Rs. 10 lakhs. The High Court, relying on <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> (<em>which had been held to apply to pending appeals in <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/cit-vs-delhi-race-club-ltd-delhi-high-court-cbdt-circular-on-monetary-limits-for-filing-appeals-applies-to-pending-appeals\/\">CIT vs. Delhi Race Club Ltd<\/a><\/strong><\/em>) dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. The Department challenged the decision on the ground that <em>para 11 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> made it clear that it would apply only to appeals filed on or after 9.2.2011<\/em> and not to appeals filed earlier. HELD by the Supreme Court:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>In view of Para 11 of <a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/info\/index.php\/revised-limits-for-filing-appeals-by-department-before-appellate-authorities\/\">CBDT Instruction No.3\/2011 dated 9th February, 2011<\/a>, liberty is granted to the Department to move the High Court by way of review within four weeks.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<div class=\"journal2\">\nSee Also: <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/cit-vs-surya-herbal-ltd-supreme-court-cbdt-low-tax-effect-circular-not-applicable-to-matters-having-cascading-effect\/\">Surya Herbals<\/a><\/strong> (SC), <a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/info\/index.php\/circular-on-monetary-limits-for-filing-appeals-applicable-prospectively-cbdt\/\">CBDT&#8217;s letter dated 2.9.2011<\/a> &#038; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/blog\/index.php\/taxaholic-the-week-that-was-2\/\">Article<\/a>\n<\/div>\n<p><!--\n\n\n\n\n\n\/\/--><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In view of Para 11 of <a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/info\/index.php\/revised-limits-for-filing-appeals-by-department-before-appellate-authorities\/\">CBDT Instruction No.3\/2011 dated 9th February, 2011<\/a>, liberty is granted to the Department to move the High Court by way of review within four weeks.<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-virgo-marketing-pvt-ltd-supreme-court-high-court-to-consider-whether-low-tax-effect-circular-has-retrospective-effect\/\">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":[4,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4419","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-supreme-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\/4419","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=4419"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4419\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4419"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4419"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4419"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}