Dismissed

The Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Asha B. Parekh

Bombay HC23 Sept 2005WTA/17/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this wealth tax appeal, the Revenue challenged an order directing the Assessing Officer to discount an annuity policy at 25%. The Court noted the tax stake was below the mandatory floor set by the CBDT and followed precedent to hold that the department cannot file appeals against old cases where tax is less than two lakhs.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs Asha B. Parekh — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 WEALTH TAX APPLICATION NO.17 OF 1999

¶4

 The Commissioner of Wealth-tax,
 Mumbai City - I, Mumbai .. Petitioner.
 V/s.

¶5

 Asha B. Parekh .. Respondent.

¶6

 Mr.Parag Vyas i/b. Dr.T.C. Kaushik for the
 petitioner.

¶7

 Ms.Usha Dalal for the respondent.

¶8

 CORAM : V.C. DAGA &
 J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.

¶9

 DATED : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2005.
P.C. :

¶10

 . By this appeal filed under Wealth Tax Act,
 1961, the Revenue has challenged the order dated 20th
 January, 1998 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
 Tribunal, Mumbai and raised the following substantial
 question of law :

¶11

 Whether on the facts and in the
 circumstances of the case and in the law the
 I.T.A.T. was right in directing the
 Assessing Officer to value the annuity
 policy by discounting the same at 25% ?

¶12

 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶13

 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue
 invited our attention to the instructions issued by

¶14

¶15

 the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi dated
 27th March, 2000; wherein monetory limit for the
 department for filing reference/appeal to the High
 Court earlier fixed for Rs.50,000/- came to be
 revised and fresh instructions are issued by the
 Board to file reference only in cases where tax
 effect exceeds Rs.2,00,000/-. Learned counsel for
 the appellant-revenue fairly admits that the stake of
 revenue in this case is below Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶16

 4. This Court in the case of C.I.T. V. Camco
 Colour Co., (2002) 254 ITR 565 ruled that the above
 instructions are binding on the department. This
 judgment is followed by this Court in C.I.T. v.
 Pithwa Engg. Works, (2005) 276 ITR 519 and held that
 it is not open for the Department to contend that
 this circular is binding only with respect to the new
 cases and not with respect to the old cases even if
 the tax is less than Rs.2 lakh. The same policy for
 old matters needs to be adopted by the Department.

¶17

 5. The above instructions dated 27th March,
 2000 reflects the policy decision taken by the Board
 not to raise questions of law where the tax effect is
 less than the amount prescribed in the instructions
 with a view to reduce litigations before High Courts
 and Supreme court. The circular is binding on the

¶18

¶19

 Revenue. There is no justification to proceed with
 the appeal having tax effect less than Rs.7,000/-.

¶20

 6. We, thus, do not think it necessary to
 entertain this appeal and answer the question raised
 by the appellant-revenue. Accordingly, appeal stands

¶21

 dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶22

 (V.C. DAGA, J.)

¶23

 (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)

The Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Asha B. Parekh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Asha B. Parekh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hoteel Leela Venture and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

The Commissione of Customs Import,Mum Vs M/S Gazebo

The Commissioner of Customs Import Vs M/S Gaurav Enterprises

Aillak Pannalal Digambar Jain Pathashala and Anr. Vs Shikshan Shulk Samiti and Ors.

Aillak Pannalal Digambar Jain Pathashala and Anr. Vs Shikshan Shulk Samiti and Ors.

M/S. Hotline Glass Ltd. Vs the Union of India and Anr.