| Case ID |
046df410-eb83-46b8-a192-aab8a8c9b557 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
|
| Decision Date |
|
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court addressed the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the assessee, which was based on a previous judgment regarding the tax effect involved in the appeal. The learned counsel argued that the tax effect was below the limit prescribed for filing an appeal as per the circular issued in 2008. The Revenue's counsel contended that the circular did not apply retrospectively and should not affect the appeals already filed, which should be adjudicated based on the policy at the time of filing. The court noted that while the circular was not retrospective, it could still apply to pending appeals. Ultimately, the court expressed its inclination that the circular regarding appeals could not influence those filed prior to its issuance. The matter was then referred to the Chief Justice for the establishment of a larger Bench to further consider this issue. |
| Summary |
In the case before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the primary focus was on the interpretation and application of the Income-tax Act, 1961, particularly sections 260A and 268A. The case involved the Commissioner of Income Tax and Varindra Construction Co., with the court scrutinizing the implications of a circular issued in 2008 concerning the tax effect for appeals. The learned counsel for the assessee raised an objection that the appeal should not proceed based on the circular's limitations. However, the Revenue's counsel argued that the circular did not have a retrospective effect, indicating that appeals filed before its issuance should be judged based on earlier standards. The court deliberated on the applicability of the circular to pending appeals and concluded that a larger Bench should review the matter for clarity. This case underscores the complexities of tax law and the importance of procedural adherence in appeals, highlighting the judicial system's role in ensuring fair interpretation and application of tax regulations. |
| Court |
Punjab and Haryana High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
|
| Lawyers |
Dinesh Goyal,
Ravish Sood
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
Varindra Construction Co.
|
| Citations |
2010 SLD 2899 = (2010) 328 ITR 446
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Abhinash Gupta [2010] 327 ITR 619 (P&H) (para 1),
CIT v. Madhukar K. Inamdar (HUF) [2009] 318 ITR 149 (Bom.) (para 3)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
260A,
268A
|