SALAUDDIN vs. ACIT,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 43/PAT/2013Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 September 2019AY 2009-107 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 are applicable to pending appeals as well. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT, but the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The assessee argued that the appeal was not maintainable.

What were the issues?

Whether the enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals by the Revenue, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, are applicable to pending appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH, PATNA

Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM

Hearing: 16/09/2019

per the amendment carried out by the CBDT in Circular No.17/2019,

dated 8th August, 2019, or any of the conditions etc. as available in the

amended para 10 of Circular No.3/2018, dated 20th August, 2018.

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue deserves to be dismissed.

11.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on18/09/2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (C.M.GARG) (L.P.SAHU) �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पटना /Patna; �दनांक Dated:18/09/2019 S.Sinha. (PS) आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant- 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent- 2. 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A), आयकर आयु�त / CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पटना / DR, 5. ITAT, Patna गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. स�या�पत ��त //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

(Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, पटना / ITAT, Patna

More judgments on Section 268A

All 3,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →