Dismissed

The Commissioner of Income TAX-6, Mumbai v. M/S. Heritage Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai

Bombay HC2 Mar 2016ITXA/492/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Income Tax Appeal regarding Assessment Year 2004-05, the Revenue counsel relied on Circular No. 21 of 2015, noting the tax effect was below the High Court limit. Consequently, the Revenue chose not to press the appeal, resulting in its dismissal with refund of court fees.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as not pressed with refund of court fees.

The Commissioner of Income TAX-6, Mumbai Vs M/S. Heritage Marbles… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

492-09-itxa=.doc

¶2

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

¶3

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 492 OF 2009

¶4

The Commissioner of Income Tax-6 .. Appellant

¶5

v/s.

¶6

M/s. Heritage Marbles Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent

¶7

Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant Mr. V.S. Hadade for the respondent

¶8

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.J.

¶9

DATED : 2^nd MARCH, 2016.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

This Appeal relates to Assessment Year 2004-05.

¶12

Mr. Suresh Kumar, 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:-

¶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

492-09-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 Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed.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. 17.03 lakhs as mentioned in paragraph 9 of the Appeal Memo.

¶21

In view of the above, Mr. Suresh Kumar, 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

(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.)

¶25

(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

¶26

2 of 2

¶27

Uday S. Jagtap

The Commissioner of Income TAX-6, Mumbai v. M/S. Heritage Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income TAX-6, Mumbai v. M/S. Heritage Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai

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 - I Nashik Vs Akruti Group of Companies

The Commissioner of Income Tax -I Vs Shri Rahul Pradeep Merchant

The Commissioner of Income Tax -1 Nashik Vs Nashik District Labour Societies Co-Op Federation Ltd.

The Commissioner of INCOME-TAX-9,MUM Vs M/S Bezel Pharma Pvt. Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Xvi, Mumbai Vs Shri. Pundrik a. Shah

The Commissioner of Income TAX-3 Mumbai Vs M/S. Tangerine Electronic Systems Private Limited