Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 1963 2014 SLD 1963 (2014) 363 ITR 572
Gujarat High Court
TAX APPEAL NO. 2213 OF 2010, MARCH 25, 2014
BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, C.J.
M.R. Bhatt and Ms. Mauna M. Bhatt for the Appellant. S.N. Soparkar and Ms. Swati Soparkar for the
Respondent.

Commissioner of IncomE tax, Central -IIv.Shambhubhai Mahadev Ahir

Law:

Section:

ORDER Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ. - The following question of law has been referred to the larger bench by a Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Akil Kureshi & Ms. Harsha Devani, JJ.) by order dated 12th September 2012: "Whether the view taken by this Court in case of Sureshchandra Durgaprasad Khatod(HUF)(supra) that the instructions of 2011 of the Board providing for revised monetary limits for filing the appeals to the Tribunals, High Courts and Supreme Court, would apply to all pending cases irrespective of the date of filing of such appeals is correct, particularly, in view of express language used in paragraph 2 of the instructions which provides for revised monetary limits for filing of the appeals and paragraph 11 thereof which provides inter-alia that such instructions will apply to appeals filed on or after 9th February 2011?" 2. Consequently, the matter has been placed before this Bench. 3. The facts leading to the present Reference may be summed up thus: 3.1 A Tax Appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act (the Act, hereafter) was filed by the Revenue calling in question the judgment dated May 31, 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(the Tribunal, hereafter) raising various questions. The Appeal was filed on 13th October 2010. There is no dispute that the tax effect involved in this appeal exceeded Rs.4 lac which was the threshold limit permitting the Revenue to prefer appeal before the High Court as provided by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT hereafter), in its instructions dated 15th May (the instructions of 2008, hereafter). There is also no dispute that such tax effect, however, does not exceed Rs.10 lac, a revised limit provided by the CBDT in its later instructions dated 9th February 2011 (the instructions of 2011, hereafter). 3.2 In the above facts, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee/respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the tax effect involved is less than the minimum threshold limit provided by the CBDT in its instructions of 2011, which was in force on the date when the appeal came up for hearing, i.e. 12th September 2012. 3.3 The learned…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492