| Case ID |
2cf47b0f-dd71-44ef-b095-20af885bc088 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
TAX CASE (APPEAL) No. 1612 OF 2005 |
| Decision Date |
Apr 22, 2009 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed as the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed in the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular dated March 27, 2000. The court held that the circular is binding on the Revenue and should be adhered to, confirming that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in its decision. The ruling emphasizes the importance of compliance with established guidelines regarding monetary limits for appeals by the Revenue, as well as the principle that the tax effect in the present case was less than Rs. 2 lakhs. The court reiterated that the circulars issued by the CBDT must be respected and followed, further solidifying the precedent that tax appeals with a minimal tax effect are not to be pursued. |
| Summary |
The case involves the appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax against the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the assessment year 1998-99. The Tribunal had ruled in favor of the Salem District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. regarding the tax effect of Rs. 47,151, which the Revenue sought to tax. The key issue was whether the tax effect was below the threshold set by the CBDT Circular, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The ruling is significant in establishing the binding nature of CBDT circulars on the Revenue, thereby promoting adherence to guidelines that aim to streamline tax litigation and reduce unnecessary appeals. This decision is vital for tax practitioners and entities involved in similar tax disputes, ensuring clarity in the process and reinforcing the importance of compliance with existing tax regulations. |
| Court |
Madras High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Salem District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd.
|
| Judges |
K. Raviraja Pandian,
M.M. Sundresh
|
| Lawyers |
K. Subramaniam
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
Salem District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd.
|
| Citations |
2010 SLD 1831,
(2010) 323 ITR 239
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Associated Electrical Agencies [2007] 295 ITR 496 (Mad.),
CIT v. Camco Colour Co. [2002] 254 ITR 565 (Bom.),
CIT v. Concord Pharmaceuticals [2009] 317 ITR 395 (Guj.),
CIT v. Digvijay Singh [2007] 292 ITR 314 (MP),
CIT v. P.S.T.S. Thiruvirathnam and Sons [2003] 261 ITR 406 (Mad.),
CIT v. Rajasthan Patrika Ltd. [2002] 258 ITR 300 (Raj.),
CIT v. Ramanathapuram District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. [2002] 255 ITR 423 (SC),
CWT v. S. Annamalai [2002] 258 ITR 675 (Mad.),
State of Kerala v. Kurian Abraham (P.) Ltd. [2008] 303 ITR 284 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
260A
|