Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: cpt :: due date for vat payment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: VAT Audit :: empanelment :: form 3cd :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: TDS :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: VAT RATES
 
 
From the Courts »
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21

CIT vs. Sevak Pharma Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
April, 08th 2013

Low Tax Effect Circular: Dept to show why appeal should not be dismissed

The department filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that the tax involved in the appeal was less than the monetary limit of Rs. 3 lakhs prescribed in CBDT Instruction No.3/2011 dated 9.2.2011. The Tribunal followed Madhukar Inamdar (HUF) 318 ITR 149 (Bom) where it was held that the CBDT Instructions fixing monetary limit for filing an appeal to the Tribunal would apply even to pending cases. The Department then filed a MA before the Tribunal pointing out that in CIT v. Surya Herbal the Supreme Court had held that the CBDT Instruction No.3/2011 would not apply ipso facto and would not apply where the matter has cascading effect or raises a common principle involving a large number of matters. The Tribunal dismissed the MA. On appeal by the department to the High Court, HELD dismissing the appeal:

The grievance of the Revenue is that the Tribunal ought to have entertained the appeal by following the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Surya Herbal Ltd. However, the revenue has not been able to point out before us any of circumstance as laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Surya Herbal Ltd being applicable to this case which would lead to non application of CBDT instructions No.3/2011. In the above circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law (it was also held following Chem Amit 272 ITR 397 that an appeal u/s 260A cannot be filed to challenge an order dismissing a MA)

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Experience

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions