Dismissed

Commissioner of Income v. Smt Jayapradha

Madras HC2 Nov 2018TC/1041/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed income-tax appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the tax effect fell below the monetary threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs specified in Circular No. 3 of 2018, leaving the substantial question of law open and the Revenue liable to seek restoration if the limit is exceeded.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed due to tax effect being below the ₹50 lakhs threshold; substantial question of law left open; no costs.

Commissioner of Income Vs Smt Jayapradha — Income Tax | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.11.2018

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶7

Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.1041 to 1048 of 2008
The Commissioner of Income-Tax,
Chennai. ... Appellant
in all the Appeals
-vs-
Smt.Jayapradha,
1, Hindi Prachar Sabha Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai-93. ... Respondent
in all the Appeals

¶8

Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961

¶9

against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench “B”, Chennai, dated 24.08.2007 in I.T.A.Nos.930 to 937/Mds/2002 for the assessment

¶10

years 1983-84 to 1988-89, 1990-01 and 1991-92 respectively. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan (in all the Appeals) Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : No Appearance (in all the Appeals)

¶11

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

¶14

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶15

(Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.)

¶16

These appeals, by the appellant/Revenue, are directed against the common order dated 24.08.2007, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench “B”, Chennai, in I.T.A.Nos.930 to 937/Mds/2002 for the assessment years 1983-84 to 1988-89, 1990-01 and 1991-92 respectively.

¶17

2.Heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel and Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Revenue.

¶18

following substantial question of law:-

¶19

“Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had properly exercised its discretion and was right in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c)?”

¶20

passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and we find that the tax

¶21

effect in these appeals is lesser than the threshold limit mentioned in Circular No.3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes,

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

¶24

which fixes the monetary limit as Rs.50,00,000/- for the Department to pursue the matter. Furthermore, the Revenue has not been able to point out any distinguishing features, by which the Circular No.3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, cannot be applied.

¶25

5.Thus, for the above reasons, the Revenue cannot pursue these appeals in view of the low tax effect. Hence, the appeals are dismissed and the substantial question of law, framed for consideration, is left open. The Revenue is at liberty to seek for restoration of appeals if at a later point of time, it is found

¶26

that the tax effect is above the threshold limit or to fall under the exceptional clauses mentioned in the Circular. No costs.

¶27

(T.S.S., J.) (V.B.S., J.)
02.11.2018

¶28

abr

¶29

¶30

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench “B”, Chennai.

¶31

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶32

¶33

T.S.Sivagnanam, J. and V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, J.

¶34

(abr)

¶35

(abr)
T.C.(A) Nos.1041 to 1048 of 2008

¶36

02.11.2018

¶37

http://www.judis.nic.in

Commissioner of Income v. Smt Jayapradha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Income v. Smt Jayapradha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs M/S Triveni Alloys

The Commissioner of Vs Shri Suresh Krishna

Commissioiner of Income Tax IV Vs Mr.M.N.Rajaraman

M/S Palani Andavar Trading Company Vs the Assistant Commissioner Ct

M/S.Glory Impex Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Principal Commissioner of Vs M/S.S-1911 an Pudur Paccs Ltd.