ITO, WARD-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. STEEL KONNECDT (INDIA), PVT LTD, AHMEDABAD
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was dismissed at the threshold.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal against the deletion of disallowance of additional depreciation. The tax effect of the disputed disallowance was below the threshold limit set by a CBDT circular.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal given the tax effect is below the threshold prescribed by CBDT circulars.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘A’
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE- & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT
This is Revenue’s appeal directed against order of the ld.CIT(A)-4, Ahmedabad dated 29.1.2019 passed for the Asstt.Year 2015-16.
In this appeal, the grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs.64,92,560/-.
At the outset, it is noticed by the Bench that in form no.36, in ground of appeal column, the Department has mentioned total tax effect on the disputed disallowance around Rs.22,06,820/-, and therefore, a query was put to the ld.DR about maintainability of appeal of the Revenue before the Tribunal in view of recent CBDT circular no.17 of 2019 prohibiting filing of appeal by the Department before the Tribunal
2 where tax effect is below Rs.50 lakhs. The ld.DR did not dispute applicability of the recent CBDT circular and left to the Tribunal to pass appropriate order in the matter.
Admittedly tax effect in the present appeal is below Rs.50 lakhs, and therefore, keeping in view the above CBDT circular and provisions of section 268A of the Income Tax Act, we are of the view that the present appeal of the Revenue deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. It is accordingly dismissed.
However, it is observed that in case on re-verification at the end of the AO it can be demonstrated that the tax effect on the disputed addition is more, or Revenue’s case falls within the ambit of exceptions provided in the Circular, then the Department will be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall of this order. Such application should be filed within the time period prescribed in the Act 5. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect. Order pronounced in the Court on 23rd July, 2021 at Ahmedabad.
More judgments on Section 268A
- Income Tax Officer, Ajmer vs Hemant Kumar Sharma, AjmerITA 1506/JPR/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Income Tax Officer, Indore vs Aashta Doshi, IndoreITA 789/IND/2025[2024-25]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Income Tax Officer Ward -1(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs Khushal Madhavlal Darji, AhmedabadITA 82/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mehsana vs Hemantkumar Faljibhai Chaudhary, MehsanaITA 475/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Dy. CIT-4(1), Indore vs Kiran Bajpai, IndoreITA 426/IND/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
