C.I.T., Central-1, Calcutta v. M/s Hemraj Mahabir Prasad Ltd - 2015-LL-1103-11

Citation	2015-LL-1103-11
Appellant Name	C.I.T., Central-1, Calcutta
Respondent Name	M/s Hemraj Mahabir Prasad Ltd.
Court	SUPREME COURT
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	03/11/2015
Assessment Year	1991-92
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	tax effect
Bot Summary:	As per Instruction No. 2/2005 dated 24.10.2005 of the CBDT, no appeals were to be filed where the tax effect was less than Rs. 10 lakhs. Mr. A. K. Sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing for the Department submits that the reason for filing the appeal presumably was that the issue involved had the recurring effect. On the other hand, we are informed by the learned counsel of the Respondent that except the present appeal, which pertains to the Assessment Year 1991-1992, an order of the Tribunal giving the same treatment has been accepted by the Department and no appeals were filed even in the High Court. Keeping in view the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for the Respondent, we dismiss the appeal on the ground of low tax effect only, leaving the question of law open. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order. COURT MASTER COURT MASTER Signed order is placed on the file.

IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5171 OF 2007 C.I.T.,CENTRAL-1, CALCUTTA ... Appellant VERSUS M/S.HEMRAJ MAHABIR PRASAD LTD., CALCUTTA ... Respondent O R D E R This appeal pertains to Assessment Year 1991-1992 and tax effect is Rs.8,84,860/-. As per Instruction No. 2/2005 dated 24.10.2005 of CBDT, no appeals were to be filed where tax effect was less than Rs. 10 lakhs . Mr. A. K. Sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing for Department, however, submits that reason for filing appeal presumably was that issue involved had recurring effect. On other hand, we are informed by learned counsel of Respondent that except present appeal, which pertains to Assessment Year 1991-1992, order of Tribunal giving same treatment has been accepted by Department and no appeals were filed even in High Court. Keeping in view aforesaid statement of learned counsel for Respondent, we dismiss appeal on ground of low tax effect only, leaving question of law open. Signature Not Verified ......................., J. Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2015.11.07 [ A.K. SIKRI ] 13:40:50 IST Reason: ......................., J. New Delhi; [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ] November 03, 2015. ITEM NO.108 COURT NO.13 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No. 5171/2007 C.I.T.,CENTRAL-1, CALCUTTA Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S.HEMRAJ MAHABIR PRASAD LTD.,CALCUTTA Respondent(s) Date : 03/11/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Appellant(s) Mr. A. K. Sanghi, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. M. Singh, Adv. Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, Adv. Mr. Pravesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta, Adv. UPON hearing counsel Court made following O R D E R appeal is dismissed in terms of signed order. (Nidhi Ahuja) (Renu Diwan) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER [Signed order is placed on file.] C.I.T., Central-1, Calcutta v. M/s Hemraj Mahabir Prasad Ltd

Metadata

Judgment