COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. J K SECURITIES PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/879/2011HC GujaratGJHC24045218201130 January 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI,HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that since the tax effect involved in the appeal was less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, and in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, which mandates that no appeal with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and is retrospectively applicable to pending appeals, the appeal would not be pressed by the appellant. The reasoning is based on the explicit terms of the circular and the admitted tax effect. The operative direction is that the appeal is disposed of as not pressed. The court also granted liberty to the appellant to seek revival of the appeal if there was any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular was not applicable for any reason.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against J K Securities Pvt Ltd (Assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The appeal challenges an order or action that is not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the appeal was filed before the High Court. A crucial fact is that the tax effect involved in the appeal is admitted by both parties to be less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. This fact is central to the outcome of the appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the appeal filed by the Revenue should be entertained, given the tax effect involved. The Revenue, through its learned Senior Standing Counsel, did not press the appeal. This inaction implies a concession or an acknowledgment of the applicability of a relevant circular. The Assessee, represented by its advocates, was present. The underlying question, though not explicitly framed as a dispute to be decided on merits, relates to the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 to pending appeals. The Revenue's stance suggests it conceded to the circular's effect on this appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/879/2011 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 879 of 2011 ========================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus J K SECURITIES PVT LTD ========================================================== Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the APPELLANT MR TUSHAR P HEMANI(2790) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A. P. THAKER

Date : 30/01/2019

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Heard Mr.Varun K. Patel, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Tushar Hemani, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. It is an admitted position between the parties that the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than Rs.50,00,000/-. Under the circumstances, in the light of the Circular No.3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes which provides that no appeal wherein the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limit of Rs.50,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and has also been made retrospectively applicable to pending appeals, the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant does not press the present appeal. Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/879/2011 ORDER 3. The appeal is accordingly disposed of as not pressed in the light of the Circular dated 11th July, 2018. However, in case there is any error in the computation of the tax effect involved or if for any reason, the circular is not applicable, it would be open for the appellant to seek revival of the appeal. (HARSHA DEVANI, J) (A. P. THAKER, J) V.R. PANCHAL Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →