TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Appeals Dismissed for Low Tax Effect Despite Substantive Issue</h1> The appeals were dismissed due to the tax effect being below the specified threshold, as per CBDT Circular No. 1979, despite the substantive issue raised ... Maintainability of appeal - Tax effect below prescribed limit - Held that:- Tax effect in all the appeals is less than ₹ 2,00,000 - in view of the CBDT Circular No. 1979, Dated 27th March, 2000, and which has been given effect from 1st April, 2000, it was not open for the revenue to prefer an appeal, where the tax effect is less than ₹ 2,00,000 – the appeal cannot be admitted – Decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Interpretation of Section 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act2. Maintainability of the Tax Appeals based on tax effectInterpretation of Section 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act:The appellant-Revenue challenged the ITAT's decision regarding the applicability of Section 40A(2) and the remuneration paid to Directors of Mas Consultancy Private Limited. The main question was whether the Tribunal erred in not applying Section 40A(2) and allowing the assessee's claim, despite previous orders in the appellant's own case for an earlier assessment year. The appellant sought clarification on this substantial question of law.Maintainability of the Tax Appeals based on tax effect:During the hearing, the respondent-assessee raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeals. The respondent argued that as per the CBDT Circular No. 1979, appeals with a tax effect less than &8377; 2,00,000 are not permissible. It was acknowledged that the tax effect in all the appeals was indeed less than the specified amount. The appellant's counsel did not contest this objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed solely on the grounds of the tax effect being below the threshold, in accordance with the CBDT Circular, without delving into the merits of the case or the interpretation of Section 40A(2).This judgment highlights the significance of procedural requirements, such as the tax effect threshold for appeal filings, as outlined in the CBDT Circular. Despite the substantive legal issue raised by the appellant regarding Section 40A(2), the dismissal was based on the procedural grounds related to the tax effect.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
