DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON PR IVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2385/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2026AY 2003-044 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was allowed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A). The assessee filed a cross-objection arguing the departmental appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect below the CBDT's monetary limit.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal based on the tax effect and CBDT circular limits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI JAGADISH

For Appellant: Shri Pranay Gandhi, CA
For Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain (SR. DR.)
Hearing: 14.05.2026Pronounced: 18.05.2026

Per: SHRI JAGADISH, A.M.:

1.

This appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee are directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 30.12.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2003- 04 deleting penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2.

At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has filed Cross Objection challenging maintainability of the departmental appeal on the ground that tax effect involved in the appeal is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No.9/2024 dated 17.09.2024 for filing appeal before the Tribunal. It was submitted that total penalty deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) is Rs.60,00,000/- and tax effect involved in the departmental appeal does not exceed the monetary threshold prescribed by the CBDT. In support, the assessee has also furnished Form No.36A in the Cross Objection wherein tax effect relating to the appeal has been specifically stated.

3.

The Ld. DR fairly submitted that the issue regarding maintainability of the departmental appeal in view of CBDT Circular may be decided by the Bench.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Revenue has filed present appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on various additions/disallowances aggregating to penalty amount of Rs.60,00,000/-. The assessee in the Cross Objection has specifically raised the issue that the tax effect involved in the departmental appeal is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No.9/2024 dated 17.09.2024.

ITA No.2385/M/2026 & CO No.180/M/2026 Johnson and Johnson Private Limited 5. We find that CBDT vide Circular No.9/2024 dated 17.09.2024 has enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeal before the Tribunal to Rs.60 lakh. The tax effect involved in the present departmental appeal admittedly does not exceed the prescribed monetary limit. The Revenue has also not brought on record that the case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in the aforesaid CBDT Circular. Therefore, respectfully following the CBDT Circular No.9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, we hold that the departmental appeal is not maintainable on account of low tax effect. Accordingly, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed.

6.

Since we have held that the departmental appeal is not maintainable on account of low tax effect, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed in limine with liberty to the Revenue to seek recall of this order, if subsequently it is found that the case falls under any of the exceptions provided in the CBDT Circular or tax effect exceeds the prescribed monetary limit.

7.

In the result, Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18/05/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) (JAGADISH) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Mumbai, Dated: 18/05/2026 Ashwani Rao Sr. Private Secretary

ITA No.2385/M/2026 & CO No.180/M/2026 Johnson and Johnson Private Limited Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT (Appeals) 5. The DR, I.T.A.T.

By order

(Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →