THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK OF RAJKOT LTD.,

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/536/2015HC GujaratGJHC24047881201527 January 2020Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal was not pressed by the appellant (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax) due to the low tax effect, in accordance with Circular No. 17/2019 dated August 8, 2019. The circular establishes monetary limits for appeals before different judicial forums, including the High Court. Given that the appeal was not pressed and fell within the parameters of the circular regarding low tax effect, the court disposed of the appeal accordingly. The court also reserved liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific finding on the merits of the case was made as the appeal was not pressed.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax against The Co-operative Bank of Rajkot Ltd. The appeal was listed for passing an appropriate order by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The appeal was notified due to low tax effect. The court noted that the appeal was not pressed by the appellant in view of the low tax effect, referencing Circular No. 17/2019 dated August 8, 2019, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. This circular outlines monetary limits for filing appeals before various authorities.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect as per Circular No. 17/2019, and if the appellant is not pressing the appeal for this reason. The Revenue (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax) argued that the appeal should be disposed of in light of Circular No. 17/2019, which sets monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue stated that the appeal was not pressed due to the low tax effect, aligning with the policy outlined in the circular. The Assessee (The Co-operative Bank of Rajkot Ltd.) did not present any arguments as the appeal was not pressed by the Revenue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/536/2015 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 536 of 2015 ========================================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK OF RAJKOT LTD., ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR TUSHAR P HEMANI(2790) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

Date : 27/01/2020

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. The Registry has notified the appeal for the purpose of passing an appropriate order. The captioned appeal has been notified because of the low tax effect. The appeal is to be disposed of keeping in mind the Circular No.17/2019, dated 8th August, 2019 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Direct Taxes, New Delhi. 2. This tax appeal is not pressed in view of the low tax effect having regard to the Circular No.17/2019, dated 8th August, 2019 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Direct Taxes, New Delhi. Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/536/2015 ORDER 3. According to the new policy as reflected from the Circular referred to above, the table for monetary limits is as follows: Sr.No. Appeals/SLPs in Income-tax matters Monetray

Limit (Rs.) 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 50,00,000 2 Before High Court 1,00,00,000 3 Before Supreme Court 2,00,00,000 4. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is disposed of accordingly. In case of any difficulty, we reserve the liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) PALAK Page 2 of 2

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →