ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI vs. UTECH DEVELOPERS LTD., NEW DELHI
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The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed, citing CBDT circulars that revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal if exceptions applied.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal against the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue later sought to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the revised monetary limit set by CBDT circulars.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal due to a low tax effect, as per revised CBDT circulars.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & DR.B.R.R.KUMAR
ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM :
This appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-29, New Delhi dated 06.10.2017.
The Revenue has raised following ground of appeal:-
1. "The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts by deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 37(1) of the I.T.Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the expenses and failed to discharge its onus.
2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts by granting relief to the assessee placing reliance upon the order in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2009-10 whereas department has filed appeal against the said order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2009-10 before the Hon’ble ITAT and the matter has not attained the finality yet. 3. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.”
However, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue pointed out that the present appeal is to be withdrawn as the tax effect involved in the case is below Rs.50 Lacs.
The CBDT vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 has revised the monetary limit for filing the appeals before the Tribunal to Rs.50 Lacs.
Further, CBDT vide letter dated 20.08.2019 has also clarified that Circular No.17/2019 would be applicable to all pending appeals. In such circumstances, the present appeal filed by the Revenue in case of low tax effect is not maintainable.
Before parting, we clarify here that the Revenue shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for re-institution of appeal, if the requisite material is brought to show that the appeal is protected by the exceptions prescribed in para 10 of the Circular dated 11.07.2018.
In conclusion, by applying the CBDT Circular dated 08.08.2019 and letter dated 20.08.2019 (supra), the captioned appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
Above decision was pronounced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing in the presence of both the parties on 27th July, 2021.
More judgments on Section 37(1)
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Smit Navnitlal Soni, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs ITO Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad, GujaratITA 1434/AHD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, AhmednagarITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Digjam Limited, Jamnagar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 349/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026