DCIT CENT. CIR 2(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. NIKUNJ EDM WIRES & CONSUAMBELS, MUMBAI
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 tax effect of the disputed addition was below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
What were the facts?
The assessee offered a sum as sales in its profit and loss account, which was taxed at 33.063%. The Assessing Officer made an addition under Section 68, proposing tax at 77.25% under Section 115BBE.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable when the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT circular.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM
This appeal is filed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) for AY 2017-18 against the order passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-48, Mumbai dated 16.08.2021.
At the time of hearing of the appeal, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that only issue in this appeal is with respect to the addition of Rs.70,52,357/-, which was offered by the assessee as its sales in profit and loss account which was taxed at 33.063% whereas the learned Assessing Officer has made the addition under section 68 of the Act, which is chargeable to tax at the rate of 77.25% under section 115BBE of the Act. Therefore, tax effect on the disputed addition is only Rs.
The learned Departmental Representative submitted that this needs to be verified by the learned Assessing Officer.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the working given by the learned Authorized Representative showing that tax effect involved in this appeal is only Rs. 31,16,225/-, which is less than threshold in terms of CBDT press release dated 08.08.2019. It was not shown to us that it is covered by any of the exceptions covered in that circular. In view of this, the appeal filed by the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed as not maintainable.
In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12.04.2022.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026