Finance Ministry

Increase in threshold monetary limits for filing Appeals – CBDT/CBIC Circulars

Increase in threshold monetary limits for filing Departmental Appeals at Appellate Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court

Major Steps taken for Reducing Tax Litigations 

In order to reduce the long pending grievances of taxpayers and to minimise litigations pertaining to tax matters and to facilitate the Ease of Doing Business, Government of India has decided to increase the threshold monetary limits for filing Departmental Appeals at various levels, be it Appellate Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court in the following manner :-

Sl. No. Appeal Fora Present limit for filing appeal

(In Rs.)

Enhanced limit

(In Rs.)

1. ITAT / CESTAT 10 lakhs 20 lakhs
2. High Courts 20 lakhs 50 lakhs
3. Supreme Court 25 lakhs 1 Crore

 

This is a major step in the direction of litigation management of both direct and indirect taxes as it will effectively reduce minor litigations and help the Department to focus on high value litigations.

In case of CBDT, out of total cases filed by the Department in ITAT, 34% of cases will be withdrawn. In case of High Courts, 48% of cases will be withdrawn and in case of Supreme Court 54% of cases will be withdrawn. The total percentage of reduction of litigation from Department’s side will get reduced by 41%. However, this will not apply in such cases where substantial point of law is involved.

Similarly, in case of CBIC, out of total cases filed by the Department in CESTAT, 16% of cases will be withdrawn. In case of High Courts, 22% of cases will be withdrawn and in case of Supreme Court 21% of cases will be withdrawn. The total percentage of reduction of litigation from Department’s side will get reduced by 18%. However, this will not apply in such cases where substantial point of law is involved.

This step will also reduce future litigation flow from the Department side.

Source: PIB

Read CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and CBIC Instruction dated 11th July 2018 as issued in this regard.

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Validity of demand u/s 156 for default u/s 115-O, if assessment order u/s 143(3) has Nil demand

Can a demand notice be issued u/s 156 for non-payment of Dividend tax u/s 115-O, when as per assessment order…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

Issue already examined and adjudicated by CIT(Appeals), can’t be reopened on same set of facts

The issue already examined and adjudicated by the quasi-judicial authority, i.e., CIT(Appeals), cannot be reopened on the same set of…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

TDS can’t be denied for non deposit of tax deducted by the deductor – High Court

One TDS is deducted, credit has to follow, failure of deductor to deposit the amount to the credit of the…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

Cash withdrawal from bank can’t be taxed u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure – ITAT

Merely because assessee did not explain purpose of cash withdrawal from bank, it can not be taxed u/s 69C as…

3 days ago
  • GST

A bland statement of ‘fraud or concealment of facts” in GST Notice u/s 74 not sufficient – SC

In GST Notice u/s 74, allegations should emanate from itself, a bland statement of ‘fraud or concealment of facts” not…

6 days ago
  • Income Tax

For claiming deduction u/s 57(iii), test is of purpose and connection, not actual yield – ITAT

For claiming deduction u/s 57(iii) a reasonable and intelligible nexus should be established between the expenditure incurred and the income…

6 days ago