2007 (4) TMI 221

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R 319 and CIT v. Bhimji Bhanjee and Co. [1984] 146 ITR 145 declined to refer the questions of law raised by the Revenue under section 256(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is contended by the Revenue that even though the tax effect in each assessment year is less than Rs. 30,000, as per the Board's clarificatory circular dated June 29, 2000, where the order of the Tribunal is for more than one assessment year, then cumulative tax effect should be taken into consideration. Accordingly it is submitted by the Revenue that in the present case, the Tribunal in the case of Shri Arvind Kedar has passed a combined order for the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 and a combined order in the case of Shri Ajay Kedar for the assessmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....00,000 (iii) Appeal in the Supreme Court Rs. 5,00,000. The new monetary limits would apply with reference to each case taken singly. In other words, in group cases, each case should individually satisfy the new monetary limits. The working out of monetary limits will therefore not take into consideration the cumulative revenue effect as envisaged in Board's earlier Instruction referred to above. 3. Adverse judgments relating to the following should be contested irrespective of revenue effect: (i) Where Revenue Audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department. (ii) Where Board's order, notification, instruction or circular is the subject-matter on an adverse order. (iii) Where prosecution proceedings are cont....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cation has been sought regarding certain issues discussed in the said instruction. The Board have considered the issues raised and it is clarified that- (1) the monetary limits in the context of "each case taken singly" would mean each assessment year for each assessee considered in the case of XYZ Limited for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97, the monetary limit as prescribed in Instruction No. 1979 would apply taking together the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97; (2) even if the issues involved in an appeal under consideration are already pending in appeal before the appellate authorities, all subsequent appeals will now be filed for particular assessment year only as indicated in (i) above, if the tax effect exceeds the ....