THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, PUNE vs. SANGAMNER TALUKA SAHAKARI DUDH. UTPADAK AND PRAKRIYA SANGH MARYADIT AMRUTNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/10/2017HC BombayHCBM03032023201503 May 2018Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S V GANGAPURWALA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN M. DHAVALE3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the appeal based on the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015. This circular outlines a policy decision by the Department not to prosecute appeals where the tax liability is below Rs. 20,00,000/-. Since the tax liability in this case was below the specified threshold, the Court found no reason to proceed with the appeal on its merits. The appeal was accordingly disposed of in line with the departmental policy.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Pune (the Appellant) against Sangamner Taluka Sahakari Dudh Utpadak and Prakriya Sangh Maryadit, Ahmednagar (the Respondent). The tax liability in dispute was below Rs. 20,00,000/-. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be entertained given the tax liability is below Rs. 20,00,000/- and the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015. The Appellant, represented by Mrs. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, did not explicitly argue on the merits of the case. The Respondent, represented by Mr. R.R. Chandak, also did not present arguments on the merits. The primary consideration for the Court was the departmental policy regarding appeals with tax liabilities below a certain threshold.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.10 OF 2017 The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Aayakar Bhavan, PMT Building, A Wing, Shankar Seth Road, Swargate, Pune-37. ... Appellant. Versus Sangamner Taluka Sahakari Dudh Utpadak and Prakriya Sangh Maryadit, Amrutnagar, Tal Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. ... Respondents. ... Mrs.Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, advocate for the Appellant. Mr.R.R.Chandak, advocate for Respondent. ...

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND A.M. DHAVALE,JJ.

Date : 03.05.2018. PER COURT : 1. We have heard Mrs.Bharaswadkar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Chandak, learned counsel for the Respondent.

2 2. The

tax

liability

below Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lac). In view of CBDT Circular, dated 10.12.2015, policy decision has been taken by the Department not to prosecute the appeals below Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lac). 3. In view of that the appeal stands disposed of. (A.M.DHAVALE,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/Incometaxappeal10.17

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →