COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S BABA AMARNATH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, MOGA PUNJAB

PDF · subscribers
ITA/344/2019HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01078044201903 October 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the revised monetary limits and the fact that the case did not fall under any exceptions.

What were the facts?

The Revenue sought to withdraw an appeal before the ITAT. The withdrawal was based on a new Circular (No. 9/2024) issued by the CBDT which revised monetary limits for filing appeals. The case did not fall within the exceptions to the circular.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue can withdraw an appeal based on a revised monetary limit circular. Whether the present appeal falls within the exceptions to the revised monetary limit circular.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-344-2019 ( 136 IN T

COMMISSION M/S BABA AM CORAM: H

H Present: M

SANJEEV PR

1.

Counsel Governm Board o limits fo Court a Circular with the b fi af S 1 2 3

(O&M)

Page 1 of 2 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

NER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMP Vs. MARNATH EDUCATIONAL SO **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJA **** Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Coun for the appellant/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) l for the appellant submits that in t ment of India, Ministry of Finance of Direct Taxes dated 17.09.2024 for filing of the appeals by the de and SLPs before the Supreme C r No.5/2024 has been amended an e purpose to manage litigations: “ 2. As a step towards manag been decided by the Board to revise filing of appeals in Income-tax cases a aforementioned Circular as follows: Sl. No. Appeals/SLPs in Income-tax 1. Before Income Tax Appella 2. Before High Court 3. Before Supreme Court B AND HARYANA AT H ITA-344-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.10.2024 TIONS), CHANDIGARH . . . . Appellant OCIETY, MOGA PUNJAB . . . . Respondent EEV PRAKASH SHARMA AY VASHISTH nsel terms of the Circular issued by the e, Department of Revenue, Central bearing No.9/2024, the monetary epartment before the ITAT, High Court has been enhanced and the d following steps have been taken gement of litigation, it has e the monetary limits for as stated in Para 4.1 of the x matters Monetary Limit (Tax effect in Rs.) te Tribunal 60 lakh 2 crore 5 crore

) 4 t t e l y h e n MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.14 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-344-2019 ( r in 1 5 s m 2. The mo Circular filed be the app which h 3. In view not fall prays fo 4. Accordi withdraw 5. All pend

October 03, 202 Mohit goyal 1. Whether 2. Whether

(O&M)

Page 2 of 2

3.

Monetary limits given in regard to filing appeal/SLP shall be ncluding those relating to TDS/TCS u 1961 with exceptions as per paras 3. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024, where the d shall be taken on merits, without regar monetary limits.”

odifications have come into effe r i.e. 17.09.2024, and therefore s fore the Supreme Court, High Cou eals pending before the Supreme have been directed to be withdrawn of aforesaid Circular No.09/2024 within the exception clause of Ci or withdrawal of the present appeal ingly, we allow the prayer as abov wn. ding applications also stand dismis

(SAN 24 speaking/reasoned?

Y reportable?

Y paragraph 2 above with e applicable to all cases under the Income-tax Act, .1 and 3.2 of Circular No decision to appeal/file SLP rd to the tax effect and the ect from the date of issuance of shall apply to SLPs/appeals to be urt and Tribunal and also apply to Court, High Court and Tribunal, n. dated 17.09.2024, as the case does ircular No.5/2024, learned counsel . ve, and the appeal is dismissed as sed as withdrawn accordingly. NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

f e o , s l s MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.14 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →