COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX SHIMLA V. MS SINGHAL SOFTWARE PARWANOO

ITA/39/2009

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla against various respondents including M/s Singhal Software, M/s Reliable Infosystems, M/s Globe Industries, and M/s N.B. Infotech. The appeals were consolidated and presented before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The primary legal issue was whether the appeals should proceed given the monetary threshold for tax effect as per the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The court examined each appeal to determine if the tax effect exceeded `20,00,000/- and if any exceptions to the circular applied. Finding that the tax effect did not exceed the threshold and no exceptions were applicable, the court disposed of the appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 730317 (HC-HIMACHAL_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Circular No. 21/2015 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Direct Taxes
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B C NEGI; GOVERDHAN SHARMA; SUSHANT KAPRATE; ADITYA SOOD; SAURAV RATTAN
• Assessee Lawyers: VINAY KUTHIALA; VANDANA KUTHIALA
• Keywords: Appeal Withdrawal; Income Tax; Tax effect; Tax effect

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA ITA No. 38 of 2009 along with ITA Nos. 39, 40, 41, 42, 52, 53 of 2009, 1 and 2 of 2011 Date of decision: 5.4.2016 1. ITA No. 38 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla …Appellant Versus M/s Singhal Software, Parwanoo …Respondent 2. ITA No. 39 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla …Appellant Versus M/s Singhal Software, Parwanoo …Respondent 3. ITA No. 40 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla …Appellant Versus M/s Singhal Software, Parwanoo …Respondent 4. ITA No. 41 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla …Appellant Versus M/s Singhal Software, Parwanoo …Respondent 5. ITA No. 42 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla …Appellant Versus M/s Singhal Software, Parwanoo …Respondent 6. ITA No. 52 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla …Appellant Versus M/s Reliable Infosystems. …Respondent 2 7. ITA No. 53 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla …Appellant Versus M/s Globe Industries. …Respondent 8. ITA No. 1 of 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla …Appellant Versus M/s N.B. Infotech. …Respondent 9. ITA No. 2 of 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla …Appellant Versus M/s N.B. Infotech. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant(s): Mr.Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. B.C. Negi, Senior Advocate with Mr.Goverdhan Sharma, Mr.Sushant Kaprate, Mr.Aditya Sood and Mr.Saurav Rattan, Advocates. Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) Pursuant to circular No. 21/2015 issued vide F.No. 279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt) by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Direct Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 3 Taxes dated 10.12.2015, an office order dated 4th January, 2016 stands issued by the Registrar (Judicial & JB) of this Court to the following effect: “Hon’ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to order in pursuance of circular No. 21/2015 issued vide F.No. 279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt) by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Direct Taxes dated 10.12.2015 as under: “(1) It is to be specifically mentioned by the Income Tax Department while filing the appeal in the High Court that the tax effect exceeds `20,00,000/- except in the following matters: (a) Where the Constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule are under challenge, or (b) Where Board’s order, Notification, Instruction or Circular has been held to be illegal or ultra vires, or (c) Where Revenue Audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department, or (d) Where the additional relates to undisclosed foreign assets/bank accounts. 2. The pending appeals where the tax effect does not exceed `20,00,000/- are directed to be withdrawn/not pressed.” 2. It is not in dispute that the total tax factor is less than `20,00,000/- in each of these appeals and that they do not fall within anyone of the exceptions. As such, present appeals 4 stand disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge 5th April, 2016 (Rajni/KRS) "