https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351615 The SC addressed the retrospective application of Instruction No.3 of 2011 dated 9.2.2011, which restricted appeals to HC where tax impact was below Rs. 10 lakh. The Court held that the matter was settled by a three-judge bench in Surya Herbal Ltd., which permitted retrospective application of the circular to pending matters but with two caveats. Subsequent two-judge bench orders were passed without bringing the three-judge bench decision to the Court's notice, creating ambiguity. The SC ruled that the three-judge bench view would prevail, allowing retrospective application subject to the Surya Herbal Ltd. caveats. The Department was granted liberty to approach HC requesting non-automatic application of the circular, particularly in cases with cascading effects or involving common principles affecting multiple matters under the Income Tax Act, 1961. en-us Thu, 23 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jul 2025 10:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351615 The SC addressed the retrospective application of Instruction No.3 of 2011 dated 9.2.2011, which restricted appeals to HC where tax impact was below Rs. 10 lakh. The Court held that the matter was settled by a three-judge bench in Surya Herbal Ltd., which permitted retrospective application of the circular to pending matters but with two caveats. Subsequent two-judge bench orders were passed without bringing the three-judge bench decision to the Court's notice, creating ambiguity. The SC ruled that the three-judge bench view would prevail, allowing retrospective application subject to the Surya Herbal Ltd. caveats. The Department was granted liberty to approach HC requesting non-automatic application of the circular, particularly in cases with cascading effects or involving common principles affecting multiple matters under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 23 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351615