Disposed¶33

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Cental 4 v. Pankaj Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC16 Jul 2025ITXA/1013/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC ITA 1013 of 2024 (decided 23.07.2025): appeal disposed of as tax effect below Rs.2 crore monetary limit of CBDT Circular No.09 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024; monetary limits in CBDT circulars apply to pending appeals; exceptions in CBDT circulars operate prospectively only and cannot save an appeal filed (28.12.2022) before the exception was introduced (Circular dated 15.03.2024); reliance on Pr. CIT v. Premier Industrial Corporation Ltd (2025) 172 Taxmann.com 289 (Bom); Salgaonkar, IPL Loan Trust and Axis AD Print Media referred to within quoted precedent; no costs; questions of law kept open.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of as the tax effect is below the monetary limits set out in the CBDT Circular dated 17th September 2024; no order as to costs; questions of law kept open. ¶33

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Cental 4 vs Pankaj Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of as the tax effect is below the monetary limits set out in the CBDT Circular dated 17th September 2024; no order as to costs; questions of law kept open.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the Appeal can be entertained/prosecuted when its tax effect is below the Rs.2 Crores monetary limit prescribed in CBDT Circular No.09 of 2024 dated 17th September 2024. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Monetary limits prescribed in CBDT Circulars apply to pending Appeals as well; therefore, for the purposes of the monetary limits, the Circular dated 17th September 2024 applies to this Appeal filed on 28th December 2022.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Exceptions carved out by CBDT Circulars apply only prospectively and have no application if introduced after the filing of the Appeal.

¶28

Key takeaways

The exception relied upon by the Revenue in the Circular dated 15th March 2024 cannot be a justification for prosecuting this Appeal, which was filed on 28th December 2022, i.e. before that exception was introduced.ratio¶32
The questions of law as projected by the Revenue in the Appeal are kept open to be considered in an appropriate case.obiter¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, OOCJ — ITA No. 1013 of 2024 — Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-4 v. Pankaj Aluminium Industries Pvt Ltd — B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ. (joint order bearing heading 'P. C.'), July 23, 2025. The Appeal, filed on 28th December 2022 when the monetary limit was Rs.1 Crore, was placed on board 'for directions' because its tax effect was found to be less than Rs.2 Crores, the limit stated in CBDT Circular No.09 of 2024 dated 17th September 2024. Following the principle in Pr. CIT v. Premier Industrial Corporation Ltd, (2025) 172 Taxmann.com 289 (Bom), the Court held that (i) monetary limits prescribed in CBDT Circulars apply to pending Appeals, so the 17th September 2024 Circular governs this Appeal; and (ii) exceptions carved out by CBDT Circulars apply only prospectively and have no application if introduced after the filing of the Appeal — hence the exception in the Circular dated 15th March 2024, invoked by the Revenue, could not justify prosecuting an Appeal filed on 28th December 2022. The Appeal was disposed of, with no order as to costs, and the questions of law projected by the Revenue were expressly kept open.

¶1

85.itxa.1013.24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1013 OF 2024

¶3

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central- 4

¶4

.. Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Pankaj Aluminium Industries Pvt Ltd

¶7

.. Respondent

¶8

Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocates for the Appellant.

¶9

Ms. Mrunal Parekh (through VC) i/b DMD Advocates, Advocates for the Respondent.

¶10

Digitally signed ANJALI by ANJALITUSHAR TUSHAR ASWALE ASWALE Date: 2025.07.2812:14:48 +0530

¶11

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &

¶12

FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JULY 23, 2025

¶13

P. C.

¶14

The above Appeal has been placed on board “for directions” today because we have found that the tax effect in this Appeal is less than Rs.2 Crores as stated in the CBDT Circular No.09 of 2024 dated 17^th September 2024.

¶15

Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the present Appeal was filed on 28^th December 2022. He submitted that when this Appeal was filed, the monetary limit was

¶16

Page 1 of 4 JULY 23, 2025

¶17

Aswale

¶18

85.itxa.1013.24.doc

¶19

only Rs.1 Crore and the amount involved in this Appeal is more than Rs. 1 Crore. Accordingly, he submitted that there was no infirmity in filing or prosecuting this Appeal.

¶20

Mr. Suresh Kumar, further submitted that the exceptions for not filing or prosecuting Appeals below the monetary limits was introduced by CBDT Circulars and letters issued from time to time. He referred to Circular dated 15^th March 2024 and submitted that the present Appeal would fall within one of the excepted categories mentioned in the said Circular. Consequently, he submitted that the above Appeal can be entertained notwithstanding that it is below the monetary limit as set out in the CBDT Circular dated 17^th September 2024.

¶21

We have considered the Revenue’s contentions. The precedent on this subject/contention of the Revenue, is set out in the case of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Premier Industrial Corporation Ltd [(2025) 172 Taxmann.com 289 (Bom)]. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of this decision read thus:-

¶22

Page 2 of 4 JULY 23, 2025

¶23

Aswale

¶24

85.itxa.1013.24.doc

¶25

“7. The CIT v. V. M. Salgaonkar and Brothers (P) Ltd. [2024] 169 taxmann.com 597 (Bombay), our orders dated 05 February 2025 in Income Tax Appeal No. 643 of 2018 concerning Pr. CIT v. IPL Loan Trust [2025] 171 taxmann.com 725 and connected matters and order dated 12 February 2025 in Income Tax Appeal No.1998 of 2018 (Pr. CIT v. Axis AD Print Media (India) Ltd. ) and connected appeals hold that the monetary limits prescribed in CBDT circulars would apply to pending appeals. Still, the exceptions carved out by the CBDT circulars would apply only prospectively i.e. from the date of the introduction of such exception.

¶26

8. Admittedly, before 20 August 2018, these appeals were not covered by any exceptions. However, these appeals were filed because they were beyond the monetary limits prescribe then. The monetary limits have now been revised. These revised monetary limits would also apply to the pending appeals as held in the above precedents. By applying the revised monetary limits to the pending appeals and noting that the exception upon which the Revenue relies was unavailable before 20 August 2018, we uphold the objection on behalf of the assessee and dispose of these two appeals without any cost orders”.

¶27

(emphasis supplied)

¶28

As can be seen from this reproduction, this Court has time and again held that the monetary limits prescribed in the CBDT Circulars will apply to pending Appeals as well. In other words, for the purposes of the monetary limits, the Circular dated 17^th September 2024 would apply to the present Appeal. However, this Court has held time and again that the exceptions carved out by the CBDT Circulars would apply only prospectively and would have no application, if they were introduced after the filing of the Appeal. Admittedly, in the present case, the Appeal was filed on 28^th December 2022 while the exception the Revenue relies upon was introduced vide Circular dated 15^th March 2024. Hence, the exception relied upon by

¶29

Page 3 of 4 JULY 23, 2025

¶30

Aswale

¶31

85.itxa.1013.24.doc

¶32

the Revenue in the Circular dated 15^th March 2024 cannot be a justification for prosecuting the above Appeal that was filed on 28^th December 2022.

¶33

In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Appeal is accordingly disposed of because the tax effect is below the monetary limits as set out in the CBDT Circular dated 17^th September 2024. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

We however, make it clear that the questions of law as projected by the Revenue in the above Appeal are kept open to be considered in an appropriate case.

¶35

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶36

[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶37

Page 4 of 4 JULY 23, 2025

¶38

Aswale

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Cental 4 v. Pankaj Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Cental 4 v. Pankaj Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nirmala MADAN-2013-14 vs Income Tax Officer Int Tax WARD-3(2)(1)- Mumbai

Nirmala MADAN-2016-17 vs Income Tax Officer Int Tax WARD-3(2)(1)-MUMBAI

Nirmala Madan (2019 2020) vs Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward 3(2)(1) Mumbai

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited (2017 18) vs Assistant Commissioner of Income tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

Jp Morgan Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Income tax Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

Icici Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Income tax Circle 4(1)(1) Mumbai