DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs LUCENT TECHNOLOGY INT INC

7 ' $~13to 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 28, 3.0, 31, 32 & 53, % 03.01.2017 Present; Mr. Asheesh Jain, Senior Standing Counsel for Appellants in' ItemNos. 13 & 14.- Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Standing Counsel for Appellants in Item Nos. 15 to 24, 26, 28 & 31. , Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocate for Appellants in Item Nos. ' 30,32 & 53. Mr. Arta Trana Panda, Advocate for' Respondents in Item No.l5. ' ; Mr. S. Krishnanj Advocate for Respondents in Item Nos. 18, 20, 23 & 32. - - ^ . Ms, Kavita Jha and Ms. Roopali Gupta, Advocates for Respondents in Item Nos. 24 & 31. Ms.Roopali: Gupta for Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate for Respondents in Item No. 53. + , ITA Nos.737/2004. 647/2005. 138/2008, 616/2008. 1018/2008. 1025/2008. 1084/2008. 1095/2008. 387/2010. 1657/2010. '722/2011. 1052/2011. 1188/2011. 634/2012 & 982/2015 & CM No.s 31759-60/2015 - ' (common order) This Court had .framed a question of law for consideration in these appeals. Given its pendency vide Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, . the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) spelt out the monetary limits beyond which appeals could be preferred before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), High- Courts and SLP before the Supreme Court respectively. Clause 10 ofthe Circular reads as below:- "10. This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to befiled henceforth in High Courts/Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will he governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed. " . Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified

1 This Court notices that the tax effect i.e. upon the assessed income, isf below the prescribed limit of ^20,00,000/-; The present appeals cannot be, therefore, prosecuted and are no longer maintainable. It is, however, clarified that in the event, the Assessment Officer discerns any exception in terms'ofthe ,said Circular, it is open to the Revenue to seek restoration ofthe. concerned appeals by an appropriate application. The appeals are dismissed, but in the above terms. _ S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. NAJMIWAZIRI, J. JANUARY 03, 2017 sb , ^

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. LUCENT TECHNOLOGY INT INC