Dismissed

Commissioner of Income Tax Central III v. M/S. N. Jamnadas and Co.

Bombay HC29 Aug 2016ITXA/395/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed the income tax appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-III, Mumbai, as it was not pressed by counsel. The Revenue did not press the appeal due to Circular No. 21 of 2015 from the CBDT, which introduced monetary limits for filing appeals in income tax matters. The tax effect was within a specified limit, rendering the appeal moot in t

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as it was not pressed by the learned Counsel for the Revenue.

Commissioner of Income Tax Central III Vs M/S. N. Jamnadas and Co. — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

395-14-ITXA=.doc

¶2

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

¶3

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 395 OF 2014

¶4

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-III, Mumbai .. Appellant

¶5

v/s.

¶6

M/s. N. Jamnadas & Co. ..Respondent

¶7

Ms. S.V. Bharucha for the appellant Ms. Usha Dalal for the respondent

¶8

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & S.C. GUPTE, J.J.

¶9

DATED : 29^th AUGUST, 2016.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

This Appeal relates to Assessment Year 2009-10.

¶12

Ms. Bharucha, 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 is invited to paragraphs 3 and 10 therein which read as under:-

¶13

“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

395-14-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/-

¶18

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.”

¶19

“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 Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed.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.”

¶20

In the present case, the tax effect is Rs. 14.15 lakhs as mentioned in paragraph 10 of the Appeal Memo.

¶21

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

¶22

Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed, as not pressed.

¶23

Refund of Court Fees, as per Rules.

¶24

(S.C.GUPTE, J.)

¶25

(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

¶26

2 of 2

¶27

Uday S. Jagtap

Commissioner of Income Tax Central III v. M/S. N. Jamnadas and Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Income Tax Central III v. M/S. N. Jamnadas and Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Suresh N. Vaswani Vs C.I.T. Central-Ii,Bom

Supermax Personal Care Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and 4 Ors.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 23 Mumbai Vs Mahalaxmi Chemical Work

M/S. Ceat Limited. Vs the C.I.T.B.C-Iv.

Commissioner of INCOME-TAX-5 Vs M/S. Marigold Investrade Ltd.

M/S.Pfizer Corporation. Vs the C.I.T.B.C-Iii.