Dismissed

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, CENTRAL-2 v. Shripal Lodha

Bombay HC11 Mar 2016ITXA/1092/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai appealed against an order for AY 2009-10. The appellant relied on Central Board of Direct Tax Circular No. 21 of 2015, which imposed monetary limits on filing income tax appeals. As the tax effect (Rs. 12.83 lakhs) was below the High Court limit of Rs. 20 lakhs, the appeal was not pressed and was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as not pressed. Refund of Court Fees to be allowed as per Rules.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, CENTRAL-2 Vs Shripal Lodha — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1092-15-itxa=.doc

¶2

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

¶3

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1092 OF 2015

¶4

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai

¶5

.. Appellant

¶6

v/s.

¶7

Shri. Shripal Raj Lodha

¶8

..Respondent

¶9

Mr. A.R. Malhotra a/w N.A. Kazi for the appellant Mr. Sumit Raghani for the respondent

¶10

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATED : 11^th MARCH, 2016.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

This Appeal relates to Assessment Year 2009-10.

¶13

Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue invited our attention to Circular No.21 of 2015 issued by the Central Board for Direct Tax dated 10^th December, 2015. In particular, our attention invited to paragraphs 3 and 10 therein which read as under:-

¶14

“3:- Henceforth, appeals/SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder:-

1 of 2

Uday S. Jagtap

1092-15-itxa=.doc

S. No.	Appeals in Income Tax matters	Monetary Limit (in Rs.)
1	Before Appellate Tribunal	10,00,000/-
2	Before High Court	20,00,000/-
3	Before Supreme Court	25,00,000/-

¶19

It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case.”

¶20

“10:- This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/ Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed.”

¶21

In the present case, the tax effect is Rs. 12.83 lakhs as mentioned in paragraph 11.1 of the Appeal Memo.

¶22

In view of the above, Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue does not press the present Appeal.

¶23

Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed, as not pressed.

¶24

Refund of Court Fees, as per Rules.

¶25

(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

¶26

2 of 2

¶27

Uday S. Jagtap

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, CENTRAL-2 v. Shripal Lodha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, CENTRAL-2 v. Shripal Lodha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manju Avinash Wardekar Vs the Income Tax Officer Ward -3(1)

The Ci.T.B.C-I. Vs M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd.

Cancer Patients Aid Society Vs the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) and 2 Ors.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Ii, Pune Vs Shri Chandan Shewani

The Commissioner of Income Tax Ii, Pune Vs Shri Chandan Shewani

General Electoral Trust Vs Income Tax Officer 20(1)(2) and 3 Ors.