INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), AJMER vs. SMT. ANJANA MITTAL, AJMER

PDF · subscribers
ITA 765/JPR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 July 2018AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the threshold limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made under Section 68 and Section 69C of the Income Tax Act. The additions were related to bogus LTCG claims and commission payments.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable given the low tax effect as per CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69C,Section 10(38)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 765/JP/2018

Hearing: 27/07/2018Pronounced: 30/07/2018

per the Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 of CBDT the Department

shall withdraw all the appeals having tax effect not exceeding Rs. 20

lacs pending before the Tribunal.

ITA No. 765/JP/2018 ITO vs. Smt. Anjana Mittal Hence, when the tax effect in this appeal of the Revenue is not exceeding the limits provided in the Circular No. 3/2018 the same is not maintainable. Accordingly the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/07/2018.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½ (Vikram Singh Yadav) (Vijay Pal Rao) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 30/07/2017. *Santosh. आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- The ITO, Ward-2(1), Ajmer. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Smt. Anjana Mittal, Ajmer. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File {ITA No. 765/JP/2018} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →