THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BAHETI METAL & FERRO ALLOYS 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 Revenue's appeal is not maintainable as the tax effect on the disputed addition was below the threshold specified in the CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
What were the facts?
The Revenue is in appeal against the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance of FCNRB hedging charges. The assessee argued that the appeal is not maintainable due to low tax effect, citing a CBDT circular.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal given the tax effect and the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD - BENCH ‘B’
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
(Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri P.B. Parmar, AR Revenue by : Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 27/09/2019 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 01/10/2019 आदेश/O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of ld.CIT(A)- 1, Ahmedabad dated 30.8.2017 passed for the assessment year 2014-15.
The Revenue is aggrieved by the action of the Id.CIT(A) in 2. deleting the disallowance of FCNRB hedging charges of Rs.74,68,104/-
At the outset, the Id.counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable because tax effect on the disputed addition is below Rs.50 lakhs. He submitted that by virtue of recent CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 8.8.2019, Department has been instructed not to file appeal before the Tribunal where tax effect is below Rs.50 lakhs. This instruction is applicable to the pending cases also. Therefore, the present appeal of the Revenue is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The Id.DR did not dispute applicability of 2 the recent CBDT circular and left to the Tribunal to pass appropriate order in the matter.
After hearing both the sides and after perusal of the above CBDT Instruction, we are of the view that the present appeal of the Revenue falls within the purview of the CBDT Instruction cited (supra). It is not disputed by the Revenue that tax effect on the disputed addition is more than 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. It is dismissed. However, it is observed that at in case on re-verification at the end of the AO it can be demonstrated that the tax effect 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. In view of the above, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect.
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 →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026