COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) DELHI vs. CALOREX FOUNDATION

PDF · subscribers
ITA/296/2016HC DelhiDLHC01115014201606 May 2016Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10th December 2015, the appeal had to be treated as not pressed by the Revenue. The reasoning was based on the submission by the assessee's counsel that the tax effect, even if the Revenue succeeded, would be below Rs. 20,00,000/-. The Court did not decide on the merits of the substantive appeal against the ITAT order. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as not pressed.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi, the Revenue, filed an appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal was filed for the assessment year not specified in the judgment. The Assessing Officer had assessed the total income of the assessee, Calorex Foundation, at Rs. 25,32,000/-. The tax effect stated by the Revenue was Rs. 69,67,126/-, clarified as notional. The assessee's counsel pointed out that even if the Revenue succeeded, the tax effect would be below Rs. 20,00,000/-.

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. The Revenue contended that the appeal was maintainable. The Assessee argued that the tax effect, even if the Revenue were to succeed on the merits of the appeal, would be below the threshold stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/- should not be pressed. The court had to decide whether to treat the appeal as not pressed based on this circular.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 296/2016 Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 18. +

ITA 296/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) DELHI

..... Appellant Through: Mr P. Roy Chaudhuri, Senior Standing counsel.

versus

CALOREX FOUNDATION

..... Respondent Through: Mr Ved Jain and Mr Pranjal Srivastava, Advocates.

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

06.05.2016 CM No.16767/2016 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. ITA 296/2016 2. The tax effect as stated by the Revenue is Rs.69,67,126/-. However, it is clarified that this is on a notional basis. The Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the Assessee as Rs.25,32,000/-. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the Assessee that even if the Revenue succeeds in the question urged in this appeal, the tax effect would be below Rs.20,00,000.

ITA 296/2016 Page 2 of 2

3.

Accordingly, in terms of the Circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December 2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, this appeal has to be treated as not pressed by the Revenue. 4. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed as not pressed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J MAY 06, 2016 MK

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →