Dismissed

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 10 Mumbai v. Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Energy Development Co. Ltd.

Bombay HC28 Jul 2016ITXA/489/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the Revenue's Income Tax Appeals, filed for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2003-04 with a tax effect below the statutory limits, were not pressed and were accordingly dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Both Income Tax Appeals were dismissed as not pressed; refund of Court Fees granted.

What the court decided

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 10 Mumbai Vs Infrastructure… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

911&912.itxa-489&490.11.doc

¶3

Sbw

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.489 OF 2011 WITH

¶7

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.490 OF 2011

¶8

The Commissioner of Income Tax-10

¶9

..Appellant

¶10

Versus

¶11

M/s. Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Energy Development Co.Ltd.

¶12

..Respondent

¶13

Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w Ms. Samiksha Kanani for the appellant. Mr. Atul Jasani for the respondent.

¶14

CORAM: M. S. SANKLECHA & A. K. MENON, JJ.

¶15

DATE : 28^th JULY, 2016

¶16

P.C.:

¶17

Both the Appeals relate to Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2003-04 respectively. The appeals have been filed by the Revenue from a common impugned order dated 30^th June, 2009 disposing of two appeals for the Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2003-04.

¶18

Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue

¶19

invited our attention to Circular No.21 of 2015 issued by the Central

¶20

2 911&912.itxa-489&490.11.doc

¶21

Board for Direct Tax dated 10^th December, 2015. In particular, our

¶22

attention invited to paragraphs 3, 5 and 10 therein which read as under:-

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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.”

¶26

“5. ….....….. However, in case of a composite order of any High Court or appellate authority, which involves more than one assessment year and common issues in more than one assessment year, appeal shall be filed in respect of all such assessment years even if the 'tax effect' is less than the prescribed monetary limits in any of the year(s), if it is decided to file appeal in respect of the year(s) in which 'tax effect' exceeds the monetary limit prescribed. In case where a composite order / judgment involves more than one assessee, each assessee shall be dealt with separately.”

¶27

“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.”

¶28

In the present cases, the tax effect as mentioned in paragraph 9 of the each of the two Appeal Memos is as under :-

¶29

Appeal No.	Assessment Year	Amount (Tax effect)

¶30

3 911&912.itxa-489&490.11.doc

¶31

489 of 2011	2004-05	4.16 lakhs
490 of 2011	2003-04	1.59 lakhs

¶32

As none of the two appeals have a tax effect of Rs.20,00,000/- or more, Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue does not press any of the two Appeals.

¶33

Accordingly, both the Appeals are dismissed, as not pressed.

¶34

Refund of Court Fees, as per Rules.

¶35

(A. K. MENON, J.)

¶36

(M. S. SANKLECHA, J.)

¶37

wadhwa

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 10 Mumbai v. Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Energy Development Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 10 Mumbai v. Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Energy Development Co. Ltd.

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax -13 Mumbai Vs Unique Enterprises

The Commissioner of Income TAX-9, Mumbai. Vs M.S. Om. Shanti Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.,Mumbai.

The Commissioner of Income Tax- 5 Mumbai Vs Kishore Bagai Transport P Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 10 Mumbai Vs Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Energy Development Co. Ltd.

Dhanraj Mills Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Dy.Comm.of Income Tax and Ors.

Bombay Custom House Agents Association and Ors. Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors.