TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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>Supreme Court Disposes of Appeals Below Tax Limit, Leaves Legal Questions Open</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-II Versus KUSUM GUPTA</h3> The Supreme Court, consisting of A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ., held that the appeals and petitions need not proceed further as the tax ... Validity of assessment u/s 153A/153C - Maintainability of appeal on low tax effect - HELD THAT:- On perusing the record, it appears that the tax effect in these cases is less than the monetary limit of ₹ 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores only) and thus covered by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019. In that case, these appeals/petitions need not proceed in view of the aforesaid circular issued by the CBDT. Appellant(s)/petitioner(s) prays for time to take instructions. We see no reason to keep these case(s) pending as the tax effect is less than the amount specified in the stated circular. Accordingly, we dispose of these case(s), leaving all questions of law open. At the same time, we grant liberty to the appellant(s)/petitioner(s) to revive these appeal(s)/petition(s) in the event the factual position noted above is incorrect. Issues: Jurisdiction based on tax effect below specified limit as per CBDT Circular No.17 of 2019.Analysis:The Supreme Court, comprising of A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ., noted that the tax effect in the cases under consideration was below the monetary limit of Rs. 2,00,00,000 as per the CBDT Circular No.17 of 2019. Consequently, the Court decided that the appeals and petitions need not proceed further based on the circular's provisions. The learned counsel for the appellant(s)/petitioner(s) requested time to seek instructions, but the Court found no reason to keep the cases pending due to the tax effect falling below the specified limit. Therefore, the Court disposed of the cases, leaving all legal questions open for future consideration. Additionally, the appellant(s)/petitioner(s) were granted liberty to revive the appeals/petitions if the factual position regarding the tax effect was found to be incorrect. As a result, all pending applications were also disposed of in light of the Court's decision regarding the tax effect falling below the prescribed limit set by the CBDT Circular.
TaxTMI 
