What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. The court noted that the tax effect was quantifiable and below the threshold, and therefore, the exception for non-quantifiable tax effect did not apply.

The Revenue filed an appeal against an ITAT order for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. The tax effect involved was Rs. 1,14,74,797/-, which is below the threshold limit stipulated in a CBDT Circular.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable given the tax effect is below the prescribed threshold limit and whether it falls under any exceptions to the circular.

CIT vs Ares Diversified | Delhi High Court 2025

$~60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 62/2025 & CM APPL. 14156/2025, CM APPL. 14157/2025 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1

.....Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with Mr. Anant Mann, JSC and Mr. Pratyaksh Gupta, JSC

versus

ARES DIVERSIFIED

.....Respondent

Through: None Appeared

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

10.03.2025

The Revenue has filed the present appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as“the Act”) impugning the order dated 24.06.2023 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “ITAT”) in ITA No. 2370, 2371 & 2372/Del/2023 for the assessment years (AYs) 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015- 16. 2. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is Rs. 1,14,74,797/- which is below the threshold limit of ₹2,00,00,000/- as stipulated in the Circular dated 17.09.2024. He however submits that the present appeal falls under This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:13:57

the exception carved out in clause (f) of para 3.1 of the CBDT Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024. Learned counsel also referred to the issue on merits too. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned order and para 3.1 (f) the Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 handed over the bench. 4. Undoubtedly, the Assessment Officer had passed the Assessment Order dated 29.06.2023 quantifying the tax effect in the present case. Whereas, clause (f) of para 3.1 of the aforesaid Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 carves out exemption where either the tax effect is not quantifiable or not involved. Concededly, the tax effect involved in this case is Rs.1,14,74,797/-. 5. Therefore, the tax effect quantified being below the threshold fixed by the said Circular dated 17.09.2024, the present appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed on account of low tax effect, alongwith all the pending application.

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J MARCH 10, 2025/rl

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:13:57

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1 vs. ARES DIVERSIFIED

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments