TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court emphasizes individual monetary limits for appeal, circular aims to prevent unnecessary litigation for small tax amounts.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla Versus M/s. Steinle Machine Fabric India, Dhalli, Shimla</h3> The court held that each case, even in group cases, must individually meet the monetary limits for appeal, emphasizing that the monetary limits must be ... circular No.279/126/98-IT dated March 27, 2000 - The Circular itself envisages that where group cases are involved, each case shall individually satisfy the monetary limits - No doubt, clause-3 of the instructions states that where a case involves a substantial question of law of importance or where the same question of law is involved in a number of cases then the appeal may be filed on merits without being hindered by the monetary limits - This clause envisages application of mind by the authority that despite the effect being not within the monetary limits due to compelling reasons spelt out in this clause the revenue feels that it is necessary to have a judgment of the High Court - No doubt, if such important question is identified and the revenue makes out a case that it had taken a conscious decision to file an appeal, the appeal can be entertained - Thus, there was no such averment in the ground of appeal that any such conscious decision had been taken - However, disposed of the appeal on the ground of maintainability and have not touched the merits of the contentions and decision shall not be treated as res adjudicate in any other proceedings - Appeal disposed accordingly. Issues:1. Maintainability of appeal based on tax effect being less than 4 lacs2. Interpretation of circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals3. Applicability of judgments cited in support of maintaining the appealIssue 1: Maintainability of appeal based on tax effect being less than 4 lacsThe appellant raised a substantial question of law regarding the Assessing Officer's failure to invoke specific provisions and the subsequent order under section 263. The respondent argued that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than 4 lacs, citing a circular from the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The appellant contended that the appeal could proceed based on the importance of the legal question involved, referencing judgments from the Bombay High Court. The court held that each case, even in group cases, must individually meet the monetary limits for appeal. While acknowledging the importance of substantial legal questions, the court emphasized that the monetary limits must be satisfied for each case individually.Issue 2: Interpretation of circular regarding monetary limits for filing appealsThe court analyzed the circular from the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which specified monetary limits for filing appeals. The appellant argued that the appeal could proceed based on the significance of the legal question, as mentioned in the circular. However, the court clarified that the monetary limits apply to each case individually, even in group cases. The court highlighted that the circular aimed to prevent unnecessary litigation for small tax amounts. It was emphasized that dismissal based on low tax effect did not imply a decision on merits, leaving room for addressing legal questions in cases exceeding the monetary limits set by the circular.Issue 3: Applicability of judgments cited in support of maintaining the appealThe appellant cited judgments from the Bombay High Court to support the argument for maintaining the appeal despite the tax effect being below the prescribed limit. However, the court found these judgments not applicable in the present case. The court noted that the circular required each case to meet the monetary limits individually, even in scenarios involving substantial legal questions. The court clarified that the decision on maintainability did not delve into the merits of the case and should not be considered as res judicata in other proceedings. Ultimately, the court disposed of the appeal based on maintainability, refraining from addressing the substantive contentions of the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
