COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. J K SECURITIES PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/880/2011HC GujaratGJHC24045219201130 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 noted that it is an admitted position between the parties that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. In light of 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 stipulates that no appeal where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and has been made retrospectively applicable to pending appeals, the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant (Revenue) did not press the present appeal. The appeal is accordingly disposed of as not pressed. The Court also noted that if there is any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular is not applicable for any reason, the appellant would be at liberty to seek revival of the appeal.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against J K Securities Pvt Ltd (Assessee). The appeal challenges an order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The specific assessment year(s) are not mentioned. The core of the matter revolves around the tax effect involved in the appeal. It is an admitted position between the parties that the tax effect is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. This fact is crucial to the procedural history of the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal, with a tax effect less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, should be entertained by the High Court, considering the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Revenue's contention is that the appeal should not be pressed due to the low tax effect, citing Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, which mandates that appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- should not be filed before the High Court and is retrospectively applicable to pending appeals. The Assessee's contention is not recorded, but they are represented by counsel.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/880/2011 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 880 of 2011 ========================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus J K SECURITIES PVT LTD ========================================================== Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 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/880/2011 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 →