AVOID EXCESSIVE PUBLIC SPENDING ON UN NECESSARY LITIGATION AND ENGAGING EXCESSIVE NUMBER OF COUNSELS.

[DEV KUMAR KOTHARI]

 Un-necessary litigation by revenue:

Un-necessary litigation by revenue is very common phenomena. This can be observed in matters like:

1. Making high pitched assessments forcing assessee to litigate t get justice.

2. Initiating un-necessary proceedings of different nature like:

a. rectifications

b. revision by CIT

c. enhancement of assessment by CIT(A)

d. re-assessment.

3. Filing of  appeals  in a casual and routine manner without considering merits           

4. Filing of  appeals  in a casual and routine manner without considering policy decisions of Board about monetary limits and then not withdrawing the same and pursuing the same. There have been different circulars of CBDT prescribing monetary limits revising them upward. There have been litigation by filing and pursuing appeals even when they are not maintainable before Tribunal , High courts and the Supreme Court.                                                                       

5. Filing of  appeals  in a casual and routine manner without considering policy decisions of Board about judgments / orders of Tribunal, High Court, Supreme Court which have attained finality and department has accepted the same.

6. Engaging many counsels without considering seriousness of matter.

Engagement of large number of counsels.

We can observe from reported judgments that a large number of counsels are engaged by revenue, which is not required. In any case engaging large number of counsels for appearance is not at all justified. Because the senior most counsel engaged must have prepared case with assistance of his assistants and there is no need  of appearance by so many counsels. This can further be analyzed on reading of judgments in which we find that only few counsels are required to address the courts.

 Loss of valuable time of Courts:

Due to un-necessary litigation by Governments and government departments pendency of cases is piling . This is causing strain over minds of judges also. They have also to do un-necessary and un-productive work.

Examples: Appeal without merits and  large number of counsels engaged. This study is only about cases before the Supreme Court. There are cases of appeals filed by revenue in spite of low tax effect .

2022 (12) TMI 850 - SC ORDER - THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV VERSUS SWAPNIL FINANCE PVT. LTD. Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2010 Dated: - 30-11-2022

The case was heard by two  honorable judges namely

 1.  Mr. Justice M.R. Shah And

        2.   Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

If the appeal was withdrawn time of honorable judges could have been used in other deserving cases.

This appeal was filed by revenue in year 2010 and has been decided in 2022.

At the time of hearing it was informed by counsels that tax effect is low and appeal is not maintainable in view of policy decision of CBDT in its circular vide  .No.390/Misc/115/2017-IC dated 22.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs.

Eleven counsels appeared for revenue / Appellant(s) :

1. Mr. Balbir Singh, ASG,

 2.  Mr. Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv.,

3. Ms. Preeti Rani, Adv.,

4.  Mr. Manish Pushkarna,

5. Adv., Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv.,

6.  Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Adv., 7.

 Mr. Samarvir Singh, Adv.,

8. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv.,

9.  Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv.,

10.   Mr. Prasenjeet Mohapatra, Adv. And

11.  Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR

It seems that due to so many counsels appearing for revenue, assessee also had to engage many counsels. In this case, we find appearance for the Respondent(s) the following counsels :

1. .Mr. Amar Dave, Adv., 

2.Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR,

 3.  Ms. Shruti Jose, Adv. And 

4. Mr. Rajat Mittal, AOR

In fact, it was proper for the AOR of assessee to write the honorable Court , with copy to Appellant and its AOR about non-  maintainability of the  appeal  and could have engaged one counsel or AOR  himself have handled the cases. With prayer that in case of need if Appellant insists for hearing on merits, respondent be allowed time to engage more counsels. This way assessee could have saved costs.

In this case admittedly tax effect was low therefore, it was proper for revenue and its counsels to withdraw appeal in view of Circular dated 20.08.2019. Had it been done, the pendency of cases would have reduced and costs on account of litigation was to be minimal.

ORDER in this case was passed as follows, with highlights added by author.

It is reported by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties that tax effect in both the appeals for the relevant Assessment Years - 1995-96 and 1996-97 would be less than Rs. 2 Crores which is the monetary limit to prefer an appeal before this Court, as per Circular F.No.390/Misc/115/2017-IC dated 22.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs.

In that view of the matter and on the ground of low tax effect only, the present Appeals stand disposed of.

However, question of law is kept open.

From ORDER of The Supreme Court:

It is reported by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties that tax effect in both the appeals for the relevant Assessment Years - 1995-96 and 1996-97 would be less than Rs. 2 Crores which is the monetary limit to prefer an appeal before this Court, as per Circular F.No.390/Misc/115/2017-IC dated 22.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs.

In that view of the matter and on the ground of low tax effect only, the present Appeals stand disposed of.

However, question of law is kept open.

Unquote:

From above we can say that it was a case of wastage of valuable human sources in form of services of judges, counsels of both sides  and officers of tax department and tax payers,

Judgment of High Court and Tribunal could not be found on this website and other web search.  In the reported judgment we do not find even what was matter involved in this case. Otherwise a study on relevant subject could have thrown more light about undesirable litigation and costs.

Therefore further study could not be taken about merits of the case.

Search of similar cases:

On search with criterion “income tax” as party , and ’low tax effect” under law “income Tax”  and category SC orders / highlights  we find 94 results.

First page and  fifth page  there are shown 20 +20  results, head notes of which are as follows, with highlights added by author as illustrations of different situations which prevailed.

 Fifth  page is also taken to show that earlier also when tax effect limit was low, department used to file and pursue appeals, with many other contentions raised about applicability, effective date etc.

Furthermore , we find that there are 94 cases found in search and in many of those cases large number of appeals filed by revenue were decided in similar manner.

This shows brain drain and wasteful expenditure and major reason of pendency of cases in courts.

2022 (12) TMI 850 - SC ORDER THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV VERSUS SWAPNIL FINANCE PVT. LTD. Sections: 268A, Dated:- 30-11-2022 In: Income Tax Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2010 Maintainability of appeal before Supreme court on low tax effect - tax effect to prefer an appeal before Supreme Court - HELD THAT:- As respective parties that tax effect in both the appeals for the relevant Assessment Years - 1995-96 and 1996-97 would be less than Rs. 2 Crores which is the monetary limit to prefer an appeal before this Court, as per Circular F.No.390/Misc/115/2017-IC dated 22.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs. In that view of the matter and on the ground of low tax effect only, the present Appeals stand disposed of.

2021 (8) TMI 1300 - SC ORDER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1) , RAIPUR VERSUS LATE VIJAY PAL SINGH THROUGH L/H VIMLESH KUMARI SINGH Sections: 268A, Dated:- 2-8-2021 In: Income Tax SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.24970/2020 Maintainability of appeal - low tax effect - Special Order directed filing of appeal on merit, in cases involving organized Tax Evasion Activity - HELD THAT:- Since the tax effect involved in this matter is Rs.66,89,957/-, in terms of Circular dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, we see no reason to interfere in this matter. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed, leaving all the questions of law open.

2021 (2) TMI 1279 - SC ORDER COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-II VERSUS KUSUM GUPTA Sections: 153A, 153C, 268A, Dated:- 19-2-2021 In: Income Tax CIVIL APPEAL NO.6419 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.5472 OF 2016, CIVIL APPEAL NO.6413 OF 2016, CIVIL APPEAL NO.6414 OF 2016 CIVIL APPEAL NO.6416 OF 2016, CIVIL APPEAL NO.6417 OF 2016, CIVIL APPEAL NO.6418 OF 2016, CIVIL APPEAL NO.18271 OF 2017 Validity of assessment u/s 153A/153C - Maintainability of appeal on low tax effect - HELD THAT:- On perusing the record, it appears that the tax effect in these cases is less than the monetary limit of ₹ 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores only) and thus covered by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019. In that case, these appeals/petitions need not proceed in view of the aforesaid circular issued by the CBDT. Appellant(s)/petitioner(s) prays for time to take instructions. We see no reason to keep these case(s) pending as the tax effect is less than the amount specified in the stated circular. Accordingly, we dispose of these case(s), leaving all questions of law open. At the same time, we grant liberty to the appellant(s)/petitioner(s) to revive these appeal(s)/petition(s) in the event the factual position noted above is incorrect.

2021 (2) TMI 861 - SC ORDER DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION) VERSUS RAUNAQ EDUCATION FOUNDATION Sections: 010(22), 068, Dated:- 21-1-2021 In: Income Tax Other Citation: [2021] 431 ITR 52 (SC) Civil Appeal No. 5844 of 2011 Exemption under Section 10(22) - whether the Assessee who is entitled to exemption under Section 10(22) can claim the benefit thereof for the purpose of income deemed to be chargeable to tax under Section 68? - HC held se of the word 'income' in sub-section (22) of Section 10 of the Act is wide enough to include deemed income under Section 68 of the Act - HELD THAT:- Civil appeal is dismissed on the ground of low tax effect. Question of law is kept open.

2020 (3) TMI 1307 - SC ORDER PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V VERSUS KUSUM HEALTHCARE PVT LTD Sections: 092, 092B, 092C, Dated:- 2-3-2020 In: Income Tax Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2297/2018 WITH SLP(C) No.5239/2019 TPA - international transaction - profit level indicators (PLIs) - HELD THAT:- Special leave petition is dismissed on the ground of low tax effect. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

2020 (2) TMI 1656 - SC ORDER DIRECTOR OF I.T., COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) 4 VERSUS M/S MITSUBHISHI CORP., M/S FOX NETWORKS GROUP ASIA PACIFIC LIMITED. Sections: 268A, Dated:- 28-2-2020 In: Income Tax CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1259 OF 2016, 1276/2016, 1290/2016, 1291-1294/2016, 1300/2016, 1302/2016, 1308/2016, 1309/2016, 1313/2016, 1332-1337/2016, 1345/2016, 1347/2016, 1353/2016, 1354/2016, 1355/2016, 1356/2016, 1368/2016, 1371/2016 AND Others. Maintainability of appeal before Supreme court - low tax effect - HELD THAT:- Perused the office report dated 26.02.2020, according to which in following matters the tax effect is less than Rs.Two Crores.In view of CBDT Circular dated 8.8.2019, we see no reason to interfere in aforesaid appeals, which are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

2020 (2) TMI 468 - SC ORDER THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS M/S TATA TEA LTD. Sections: 010B, Dated:- 7-2-2020 In: Income Tax Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 16503/2013 Exemption from payment of tax u/s 10B - 100% EOU - Scope of term 'Manufacture' - exemption denied on the ground that products exported were not produced or manufactured in the industrial unit of the assessee's 100 per cent Export Oriented Unit - HELD THAT:- Special leave petition is dismissed on the ground of low tax effect.

2020 (1) TMI 1121 - SC ORDER THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) & ANR. VERSUS M/S TATA TELE SERVICES LTD. Sections: 002(24), 040, 194H, Dated:- 27-1-2020 In: Income Tax Civil Appeal No (s). 4939-4940/2015 Liability to deduct TDS on discount/commission made u/s 194H - sale of SIM Cards - Trade discount for bulk sales within the scope or not - assessee M/s Bharti Airtel Limited is a Public Limited Company engaged in the business of telecom operations - Relationship of assessee or distributor or not - Scope of term ‘income’ u/s 2(24) – Survey conducted for verification of compliance of TDS provisions - HELD THAT:- Appellant(s), on instructions issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance vide F.No.390/Misc./116/2017-JC dated 22.08.2019, seeks permission to withdraw these appeal(s) along with pending application(s) therein due to low tax effect. Permission granted, subject to just exceptions. The appeal(s) and pending application(s) are dismissed as withdrawn, leaving question(s) of law open.

2020 (1) TMI 1073 - SC ORDER PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. VERSUS M/S UAE EXCHANGE AND FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD. Sections: 092, 092B, 092CA, Dated:- 24-1-2020 In: Income Tax Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 4735/2019 TPA - comparable selection - ALP - substantial question of law or fact - permission to withdraw this Special Leave Petition along with pending applications therein due to low tax effect -HELD THAT:- Permission granted, subject to just exceptions. The special leave petition and pending applications are dismissed as withdrawn, leaving question of law open.

2020 (1) TMI 1529 - SC ORDER THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS M/S ORCHID INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Sections: 068, Dated:- 23-1-2020 In: Income Tax Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8679/2018 Addition u/s 68 - discharge of onus - parties to whom the share certificates were issued and who had paid the share money had not appeared before the Assessing Officer and the summons could not be served on the addresses given as they were not traced - as per HC on voluminous documentary evidence, only because those persons had not appeared before the AO would not negate the case of the Assessee - HELD THAT:- As petitioner, on instructions issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance vide F.No.390/Misc./116/2017-JC dated 22.08.2019, seeks permission to withdraw this special leave petition along with pending applications therein due to low tax effect. Permission granted, subject to just exceptions. The special leave petition and pending applications are dismissed as withdrawn, leaving question(s) of law open.

2020 (1) TMI 927 - SC ORDER PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 VERSUS NITREX CHEMICALS INDIA LTD Sections: 037, Dated:- 22-1-2020 In: Income Tax Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13577/2017 Payment towards trade mark and use of expertise in the field of commerce, finance etc - capital or revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- On instructions issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance vide F.No.390/Misc./116/2017-JC dated 22.08.2019, seeks permission to withdraw this special leave petition along with pending applications therein due to low tax effect. The special leave petition and pending applications are dismissed as withdrawn, leaving question(s) of law open.

2020 (1) TMI 877 - SC ORDER PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL -02) VERSUS MERA BABA REALITY ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. Sections: 153A, 263, Dated:- 20-1-2020 In: Income Tax Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 38361/2018 Revision u/s 263 - Exercise u/s 263 undertaken after a full-fledged exercise already been undertaken by the AO u/s 153A - HELD THAT:- Special Leave Petitions are dismissed on the ground of low tax effect

2020 (2) TMI 99 - SC ORDER PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS M/S S-1308 AMMAPET PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. Sections: 080P, Dated:- 17-1-2020 In: Income Tax Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17745/2019 Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - whether activity of the appellant is that of finance business and cannot be termed as cooperative society? - assessee – society is registered under the provisions of the TNCS Act - definition of the word 'members' - HELD THAT:- Special leave petition and pending applications are dismissed as withdrawn due to low tax effect, leaving question(s) of law open.

2020 (1) TMI 1357 - SC ORDER THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION VERSUS INDIA INTERNATIONAL CENTRE Sections: 002(15), 011, 268A, Dated:- 17-1-2020 In: Income Tax Civil Appeal No(s). 12034/2018 Exemption u/s 11 - Charitable activities - applicability of Section 11(23) r.w.s. 2(15) - Maintainability of appeal - low tax effect - HELD THAT:- Learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance vide F.No.390/Misc./116/2017-JC dated 22.08.2019, seeks permission to withdraw this appeal along with pending applications therein due to low tax effect. Permission granted, subject to just exceptions.

2020 (1) TMI 1406 - SC ORDER THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS M/S STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR Sections: 036, 043B, Dated:- 16-1-2020 In: Income Tax Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 16249/2014 Addition u/s 36(1)(va) – PF deposited beyond the time prescribed – Scope of section 43B of the Act – Permission for delayed payment as to Employer’s contribution OR employee’s contribution – where the PF and/or EPF, CPF, GPF etc., if paid after the due date under respective Act but before filing of the return of income u/s 139(1), cannot be disallowed u/s 43B or u/s 36(1)(va) - HELD THAT:- Petitioner, on instructions issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance vide F.No. 390/Misc./116/2017-JC dated 22.08.2019, seeks permission to withdraw this special leave petition along with pending applications therein due to low tax effect. Special leave petition and pending applications are dismissed as withdrawn, leaving question(s) of law open.

2020 (3) TMI 975 - SC ORDER COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS VERSUS OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE, HIGH COURT, MADRAS Sections: 178, 234A, 234B, 234C, Dated:- 15-1-2020 In: Income Tax Special Leave To Appeal (C) No (S). 6419-6423/2017 Grant of waiver of interest and/or penalty - company in liquidation - whether for the purpose of grant the Official Assignee should approach only the Central Board of Direct Taxes or whether the Official Assignee can get appropriate orders under Section 7 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 or not? - HELD THAT:- Petitioner (s), on instructions issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance vide F.No. 390/Misc./116/2017-JC dated 22.08.2019, seeks permission to withdraw these special leave petition(s) along with pending applications therein due to low tax effect. Permission granted, subject to just exceptions. The special leave petition(s) and pending applications are dismissed as withdrawn, leaving question(s) of law open.

2020 (3) TMI 694 - SC ORDER COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTION) DELHI VERSUS DELHI BUREAU OF TEXT BOOKS Sections: 011, 012, 268A, Dated:- 14-1-2020 In: Income Tax Special Leave To Appeal (C) No(S). 2331 OF 2018 Denying exemption under Sections 11 and 12 - whether the activities carried out by the Assessee fall under the 4th limb i.e., “the advancement of any other object of General Public Utility” of the definition of the term “charitable purpose” under Section 2(15) of the Act and not under the 2nd limb “education”? - HELD THAT:- Petitioner (s), on instructions issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance vide F.No.390/Misc./116/20l7-JC, dated 22.08.2019, seeks permission to withdraw these special leave petition(s) along with pending applications therein due to low tax effect. Permission granted, subject to just exceptions.

2020 (3) TMI 974 - SC ORDER COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-II VERSUS RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. Sections: 037, 043B, 145A, Dated:- 9-1-2020 In: Income Tax Special Leave To Appeal (C) CC NO(S). 6521-6522/2017 Privilege fee - whether is in the nature of revenue expenditure and deductible expenditure under Section 37(1)? - Excise duty addition to closing stock - applicably of provisions of section 145A - Addition on account of depositing the PF/ESI payment beyond the prescribed time - HELD THAT:- Petitioner on instructions issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance vide F.No.390/Misc./116/20l7-JC dated 22.08.2019, seeks permission to withdraw these special leave petitions along with pending applications therein due to low tax effect. Permission granted, subject to just exceptions. The special leave petitions and pending applications are dismissed as withdrawn, leaving question(s) of law open.

2020 (1) TMI 344 - SC ORDER PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS M/S RAJARAM BANDEKAR (SIRIGAO) MINES PVT. LTD. Sections: 037, 143, Dated:- 8-1-2020 In: Income Tax Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 44272/2019 Dis-allowance of the commission paid to non-resident foreign agents - under invoicing - Non disclosure of Commission to the agent paid at the time of import - DRI found that customs duty was paid on such net amount remitted to the Assessee; the FOB value disclosed, on which customs duty was paid, did not include the commission paid to the foreign agents - HELD THAT:- Special leave petition is dismissed on the ground of low tax effect.

2020 (1) TMI 343 - SC ORDER PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR VERSUS SHYAM SINGH JAT Sections: 002(1A), 044AD, 056, 068, 080C, 145, Dated:- 8-1-2020 In: Income Tax Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3129/2019 Addition u/s 68 - Difference of opening cash and debtor balances - Rejection of books of accounts u/s 145(3) - Addition of agriculture income as income from other sources - Considering the interest income as income from other sources - Disallowance of deduction u/s 80C - HELD THAT:- Petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this special leave petition along with pending applications therein due to low tax effect.Permission granted, subject to just exceptions. The special leave petition and pending applications are dismisse

2018 (7) TMI 1702 - SC ORDER COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) VERSUS SURAJMAL MEMORIAL EDUCATION SOCIETY Sections: 011, Dated:- 25-7-2018 In: Income Tax Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 23751/2018 Denial of exemption u/s 11 - since the application of income was more than 85%, in terms of Section 11 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the question of denying the exemption to the Assessee does not arise? - Held that:- Special Leave Petition is dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on the ground that the tax effect is low, leaving the question of law open.

2018 (7) TMI 1697 - SC ORDER PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 VERSUS NEW HORIZON BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. Sections: 153A, Dated:- 24-7-2018 In: Income Tax Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 23000/2018 Validity of assessment under Section 153A/143 - materials on record concluded that the so called incriminating materials, which were sought to be the basis for bringing the amounts to tax, were not really so - Held that:- Delay condoned. Leaving the question of law open, this special leave petition is dismissed on the ground of low tax effect.

2018 (7) TMI 1696 - SC ORDER COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 MUMBAI VERSUS THE PAPER PRODUCTS LTD Sections: 037, Dated:- 24-7-2018 In: Income Tax Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 22933/2018 Unexplained foreign exchange forward contract - Tribunal holding that the notional loss on unexplained foreign exchange forward contract was in the nature of stock in trade capable of being valued at cost or market price - Held that:- Leaving the question of law open, this special leave petition is dismissed on the ground of low tax effect.

2018 (7) TMI 1695 - SC ORDER COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALICUT VERSUS M/S REAL FORTS AND RESORTS PVT LTD Sections: 132, 158BB, Dated:- 24-7-2018 In: Income Tax Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 22929/2018 Addition to the profit on sale of the Pent House - block assessment under Section 158BB - Held that:- Delay condoned. Leaving the question of law open, this special leave petition is dismissed on the ground of low tax effect. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

2018 (7) TMI 1694 - SC ORDER COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR VERSUS RAM PRAKASH MIYAN BAZAZ Sections: 045, 054F, Dated:- 24-7-2018 In: Income Tax Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 22912/2018 Addition on account of long term capital gain - disallowing the claim u/s 54F as the assessee was having more than one residential house as on date of transfer of the original asset - merely an agreement or booking of flat is not the property ownership, it is only a claim over the property - Held that:- Special Leave Petition is dismissed on the ground of low tax effect leaving the question of law open.

2018 (7) TMI 1453 - SC ORDER THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJASTHAN VERSUS HAZARILAL GOYAL C/O M/S BHARATPUR TRADERS NEW MANDI BHARATPUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS Sections: 045, 048, Dated:- 20-7-2018 In: Income Tax Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 18201/2018 Capital gain computation - Value of sale consideration - Held that:- Special Leave Petition is dismissed on the ground of low tax effect.

2018 (7) TMI 1345 - SC ORDER PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, AHMEDABAD VERSUS MUKESH RAMANLAL PRAJAPATI Sections: 271AAA, Dated:- 19-7-2018 In: Income Tax Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 17953/2018 Penalty u/s. 271AAA - disclosure as undisclosed income - Held that:- The special leave petition is dismissed because of low tax effect, leaving the question of law open.

2018 (7) TMI 900 - SC ORDER COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) VERSUS M/S OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION Sections: 010(23C), 011, 012, 013, Dated:- 10-7-2018 In: Income Tax Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 22657/2018 Exemption u/s 11 & 12 denied - holding funds in non-specified modes - restoring back the matter to the file of CIT(E) for giving further time and opportunity to the assessee to convert the shares into specified assets within a specified period - withdrawing the notification and benefit u/s 10(23C) (vi) of the Act - Held that:- The Special Leave Petition is dismissed on the ground of low tax effect.

2018 (7) TMI 1651 - SC ORDER COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS RAKESH VERMA Sections: 080IC, Dated:- 9-7-2018 In: Income Tax Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 19099/2018 Entitlement to deduction under Section 80-IC - whether an “undertaking or an enterprise” (Unit) established after 7th January, 2003, carrying out “substantial expansion” within the specified window period, i.e. between 7.1.2003 and 1.4.2012, would be entitled to deduction on profits @ 100%, under Section 80-IC? - Held that:- Special Leave Petition is dismissed only on the ground of low tax effect leaving the question of law open.

2018 (7) TMI 1043 - SC ORDER COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 VERSUS JAGDISH PRASAD MOHANLAL JOSHI Dated:- 16-4-2018 In: Income Tax Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 10756/2018 Substantial question of law - Held that:- The special leave petition is dismissed on the ground of low tax effect which is only ₹ 2,64,000/-. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

2018 (7) TMI 1031 - SC ORDER COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 VERSUS SUBHASH F BAFNA Sections: 080IB, Dated:- 6-4-2018 In: Income Tax Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 10143/2018 Deduction u/s.80IB (10) - Interpretation of section 80-IB(10)(d) - project approved by the Pune Municipal Corporation which is the local authority - Effect of amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2005 - Whether section 80-IB(10)(d) which was brought into force w.e.f. 1st April, 2005 would apply to projects that were approved by the local authority prior to it being brought on the statute book – Held that:- Special Leave Petition is dismissed because of low tax effect leaving the question of law open. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

2016 (11) TMI 1621 - SC ORDER COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM VERSUS M/S. KARAKULAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. Sections: 261, Dated:- 25-11-2016 In: Income Tax Special Leave to Appeal C.A. No. 011288 / 2016,CC No(s). 21938/2016 Low tax effect - monetary limit - HELD THAT: - Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal [2018 (8) TMI 1825 - SC ORDER] wherein held as a last opportunity, four weeks' time is granted to the learned counsel for the appellant(s)to file affidavit of valuation and deficit court fees, failing which the appeals shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution.

2016 (8) TMI 1391 - SC ORDER DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX VERSUS LINDE AG LINDE ENGINEERING DIVISION AND ANR Dated:- 26-8-2016 In: Income Tax Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 34138-34139/2014, SLP(C) No. 34140-34141/2014, SLP(C) No. 19147/2015, SLP(C) No. 21379/2015 Maintainability of appeal - low tax effect - Held that:- Learned senior counsel fairly submits that in view of the circular dated 07.3.2016, the special leave petitions are to be dismissed. In view of the above, the special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.

2015 (8) TMI 522 - SC ORDER COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER VERSUS CENTURY PARK Sections: 268A, Dated:- 1-4-2015 In: Income Tax Other Citation: [2015] 373 ITR 32 (SC) Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 10226 of 2015. Maintainability of appeal - low tax effect - as decided by HC [2012 (3) TMI 417 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] in view of the Circular No. 3 of 2011 it is held to be retrospective in operation by this court and it is applicable to pending appeals this appeal is not maintainable on the ground of being less than the monetary limit - Held that:- Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011, should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a For that purpose, liberty is granted to the Department to move the High Court in six weeks' time from today. - Decided in favour of revenue by way or remand.

 

 

Discussions to this article

[ANIL ANIKHINDI]

Good article-I think its a very good eye opener for the Govt. departments.

[Gnanamuthu samidurai]

Sir

I would like to add one more judgment in this line of filing appeals ie.,

Honourble High court of Madras in the case of State of Tamilnadu vs. Nadar Press Limited and another reported in 2014 (11) TMI 1076 - MADRAS HIGH COURT in which the Honourable division Bench judges held that “we are thus of the view that filing the present appeal is an example of the ritual followed by Departments, without any basis only burdening the court with litigation, despite the professed policy of the Government to not file unnecessary appeals. We thus dismiss the appeal with costs, quantified at Rs.5000.