Full Text
Translation output
o
4 # f"
7o O9.O9.?OLL
Present: None.
+ rTA t O67l201L
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue/appellant herein on the ground of low tax effect applying CBDT instructions dated gthFebrua ry, 20LL.
Submission of the Revenue was that this instruction applied
: prospectively only, and therefore, would not be covered by the aforesaid instruction. However, this contention has been rejected by the Tribunal following the order of this court in clT v. Raian Ramanee dated lSthFebru ary, 2O]I passed in ITA No.230/Del/2011
. W" may point out that in similar manner many appeals of the ftevenue were dismissed by this CourL. The Revenue preferred Special
L"uu" petition in one of these cases and in the said Special Leave Petition following order dated 29th August, 2011 has been passed by the Supreme
Court.
"Delay condoned.
Liberty is given to the Department to move the
. High Court'poinling out that the Circular dated 9th February, 2OL!, should not be applied ipso facto, particulirly, when the matter has a cascading effect.
There are cases under the Income Tax Act, 1961, in
, which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters or large number of matters. In our view, in such cases if attention of the il
2011:DHC:14634-DB
High Court is drawn, the High Court will not apply the
Circular ipso facto. For that purpose, liberty is granted to the Department to move the High Court in two weeks.
The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of."
In view of the aforesaid order, we give liberty to the Department to make a review petition before the Tribunal.
Needless to clarify, the Tribunal would go by the spirit of the aforesaid order and would decide as to whether on the facts of this case appeal should have been dismissed or not on the ground of low tax
) effect.
This appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
INDERMEET KAUR,J.
SEPTEMBER 09, 2OI.1
AK
W.P.(C) No.7067/2077 t stKRt,J.
2011:DHC:14634-DB
4 # f"
7o O9.O9.?OLL
Present: None.
+ rTA t O67l201L
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue/appellant herein on the ground of low tax effect applying CBDT instructions dated gthFebrua ry, 20LL.
Submission of the Revenue was that this instruction applied
: prospectively only, and therefore, would not be covered by the aforesaid instruction. However, this contention has been rejected by the Tribunal following the order of this court in clT v. Raian Ramanee dated lSthFebru ary, 2O]I passed in ITA No.230/Del/2011
. W" may point out that in similar manner many appeals of the ftevenue were dismissed by this CourL. The Revenue preferred Special
L"uu" petition in one of these cases and in the said Special Leave Petition following order dated 29th August, 2011 has been passed by the Supreme
Court.
"Delay condoned.
Liberty is given to the Department to move the
. High Court'poinling out that the Circular dated 9th February, 2OL!, should not be applied ipso facto, particulirly, when the matter has a cascading effect.
There are cases under the Income Tax Act, 1961, in
, which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters or large number of matters. In our view, in such cases if attention of the il
2011:DHC:14634-DB
High Court is drawn, the High Court will not apply the
Circular ipso facto. For that purpose, liberty is granted to the Department to move the High Court in two weeks.
The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of."
In view of the aforesaid order, we give liberty to the Department to make a review petition before the Tribunal.
Needless to clarify, the Tribunal would go by the spirit of the aforesaid order and would decide as to whether on the facts of this case appeal should have been dismissed or not on the ground of low tax
) effect.
This appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
INDERMEET KAUR,J.
SEPTEMBER 09, 2OI.1
AK
W.P.(C) No.7067/2077 t stKRt,J.
2011:DHC:14634-DB
JUDGMENT