What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous.

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT, and the assessee filed a cross-objection. The tax effect on the disputed issue was below the prescribed limit for filing an appeal by the Revenue.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT based on the tax effect and CBDT circulars.

ITO vs Roquette Asia Pacific Pte Ltd… | ITAT Mumbai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH: MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

Hearing: 17.06.2026Pronounced: 24.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 774/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

Income Tax Officer (IT)- Roquette Asia Pacific Pte Ltd 4(1)(2) 21stFloor, Oberoi Commerz Ii, KautilyaBhavan, R.No. 631, G- vs. Oberoi Garden City, Goregaon Block BKC, Bandra East, East, Mumbai, Maharashtra, Mumbai - 400 051, Mumbai, 400063. Maharashtra, 400051. PAN:AAICR3177N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 127/Mum/2026 (Arising out of ITA No. 774/Mum/2026) (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

Roquette Asia Pacific Pte Ltd Income Tax Officer (IT)-4(1)(2) 3rdFloor, Oberoi CommerzII, KautilyaBhavan, R.No. 631, G- Oberoi Garden City, Goregaon vs. Block BKC, Bandra East, East, Mumbai, Maharashtra, Mumbai - 400 051, Mumbai, 400063. Maharashtra, 400051.

PAN:AAICR3177N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Assessee : Shri Pranay Gandhi & Lekh Mehta For Revenue : Shri Nakul Agrawal, Sr.DR (Virtually appear) Date of Hearing : 17.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 24.06.2026 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M :

ITA No. 774/Mum/2026 & C.O. 127/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2019-20 Roquette Asia Pacific Pte Ltd This is an appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-58, Mumbai [‘Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 28.11.2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20.

During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the tax effect on the disputed issue in the impugned assessment year filed by the Revenue is Rs. 47,44,396/- for A.Y.2019-20 which is below the prescribed limit of Rs.60 Lacs and therefore, the appeal so filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. In light of the same, it was submitted that the cross-objection so filed by the assessee becomes infructious.

The ld. DR has been heard, who has been fairly conceded that the present appeal needs to be withdrawn in accordance with the CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 as the tax effect involved is below the prescribed threshold for filing the appeal before the Tribunal and prima facie, the matter doesn’t fall under any of the exceptions. He, however, requested that a liberty may be given to the Department to verify whether the case was covered in any of the exceptions and, if so, to approach the Tribunal to seek a recall and adjudication on merits of the case.

Heard both the parties and pursued the material available on record. As the tax effect involved in this case is below the limit of Rs.60 Lacs as prescribed in CBDT's Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, the present appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. At the same time, the Revenue is free to approach this Tribunal, in case, it is found that the case is covered by any of the exceptions as so stated in the said Circular.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee becomes infructuous.

ITA No. 774/Mum/2026 & C.O. 127/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2019-20 Roquette Asia Pacific Pte Ltd

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee are thus dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Mumbai, Dated: 24.06.2026 Karishma J. Pawar, SR. PS

Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file

By Order

Dy./Asst. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai

ITO (IT)-4(1)(2), KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC vs. ROQUETTE ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD, GOREGAON EAST

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments