BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, SME BRANCH,JAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), KOTA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A). The appeal involved a tax effect of Rs. 16,66,889, which was below the threshold of Rs. 20 lakhs stipulated by the CBDT for departmental appeals.
What were the issues?
Whether a departmental appeal is maintainable when the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k vk;dj vihy la- 342/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ: 2014-15 cuke Income-tax Officer M/s Bagherwal Associates, Plot Ward-1(2), Kota No. 1-B, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la- AAMFB4305K vihykFkhZ izR;FkhZ jktLo dh vksj ls : Jherh jks”kUrk eh.kk (tslhvkÃVh) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls : Jh lkSjo g’kZ (vf/koDrk) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k: 24/08/2018 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k: 29/08/2018 vkns'k Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; }kjk Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; }kjk }kjk }kjk निधार्रण व’ार् 2014-15 हेतु आयकर आयुक्त ¼अपील½] काेटा }ारा पारित vkns'k fnuakd 22/12/2017 ds fo:} funZsf'kr] jktLo foHkkx dh orZeku vihy esa mBk;k x;k gSaA
2- lquokbZ ds nkSjku] fu/kkZfjfr ds fo}ku izkf/kd`r izfrfuf/k us dj izHkko] dsanzh; izR;{k dj cksMZ ds ifji= la[;k 3@2018] fnuakd 11 tqykbZ 2018 ds vuqlkj] :i;s 20 yk[k ls vf/kd u gksus ds dkj.k jktLo dh vihy dh iks’k.kh;rk ij vkifr mBkbZA fo}ku izkf/kd`r izfrfuf/k us izLrqr fd;k fd orZeku ekeys ds rF;ksa ds vuqlkj] jktLo dh vihy esa :i;s 53]94]462@& dh vfHko`f} ij :i, 16]66]889@& dk dj izHkko gksus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS tks fd :i, 20 yk[k dh fu/kkZfjr lhek ls de gSA 3- fo}ku foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k us izLrqr fd;k fd jktLo dh vihy esa lacaf/kr dj izHkko] dsanzh; izR;{k dj cksMZ }kjk blds iwoZorhZ ifji= la[;k] 21@2015]
2 ITA No. 342/JP/2018 ITO Vs. M/s Bagherwal Associates, Kota fnuakd 10-12-2015 dks fujLr djrs gq, tkjh fd, x, i'pkrorhZ ifji= la[;k 3@2018] fnuakd 11 tqykbZ 2018 esa fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ lhek :i, 20 yk[k ls de gSA
4- geus nksuksa i{kksa ds rdksZa dks lquk rFkk vfHkys[k ij miyC/k lkexzh dk voyksdu fd;kA ;g ik;k x;k fd jktLo dh iz'uxr vihy esa ekax@dj izHkko :i;s 20 yk[k ls de gSA vk;dj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 268 , ¼1½ }kjk iznr 'kfDr;ksa ds varxZr dsanzh; izR;{k dj cksMZ us gky gh esa ifji= la[;k 3@2018] fnuakd 11 tqykbZ 2018 ¼Qk-la[;k-279@izdh.kZ-142@2007&vkbZVhts ¼ihVh½ }kjk v/khUkLFk inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks ;g funs'k tkjh fd, x, gSa fd ,slh vihyksa] ftuesa ekax@dj izHkko :i;s 20 yk[k rd lhfer gks] ds ekeyksa esa jktLo foHkkx }kjk आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण के सम{ा अपील दाखिल नहीं की जांएA उक्त परिप= esa blds lHkh yafcr vihyksa esa iz;kstuh; gksus dk fo'ks’k rkSj ij mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA
5- dqN vioknksa dks NksM+dj] dsanzh; izR;{k dj cksMZ us ;g funs'k fn;k gS fd आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण के सम{ा लंबित ऐसी सभी विभागीय अपीलाें] जिनमें ekax@dj izHkko :i;s 20 yk[k ls vf/kd ugha gS] dks ;k rks okil ys fy;k tkuk pkfg, vFkok foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k;ksa }kjk mu ij tksj ugha fn;k tkuk pkfg,A
6- orZeku vihy dsanzh; izR;{k dj cksMZ ds mDr ifji= esa mfYyf[kr vioknksa esa ls fdlh us ls Hkh vkPNkfnr ugha gksrhA D;ksafd orZeku foHkkxh; vihy esa fooknkLin dj ekax dsanzh; izR;{k dj cksMZ }kjk vihy nkf[ky fd, gsrq fu/kkZfjr lhek ls de gS] dsanzh; izR;{k dj cksMZ ds ifji= la[;k 3@2018] fnuakd 11 tqykbZ 2018 ds izdk'k esa jktLo dh vihy iks’k.kh; ugha gSA rnkuqlkj] vihy ij tksj ugha fn;k tkuk@ vihy dks okil fy;k tkuk ekurs gq, foHkkx dh vihy dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA
7- ifj.kkeLo:i] jktLo dh vihy fujLr dh tkrh gSA
3 ITA No. 342/JP/2018 ITO Vs. M/s Bagherwal Associates, Kota vkns'k fnuakd 29/08/2018 dks U;k;ky; esa lkoZtfud :i ls mn~?kksf’kr fd;k x;kA Sd/- Sd/- ¼ fot; iky jko ½ ¼ foØe flag ;kno ½ U;kf;d lnL; ys[kk lnL; Tk;iqj fnukad- 29th vxLr, 2018 *Ganesh Kumar आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ातरू 1. vihykFkhZ 2. izR;FkhZ 3. vk;dj vk;qDr 4. vk;dj vk;qDr 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण]जयपुर 6. xkMZ QkbZy (vk;dj vihy la- 342/JP/2018) vkns'kkuqlkj सहायक पंजीकार
More judgments on Section 268A(1)
- DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs C K Entertainments Private Limited…ITA 967/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Heard7 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
- DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs C K Entertainments Private Limited…ITA 964/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Heard7 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central… vs Radhakrishnan Nair Parameswaran Pillai…ITA 535/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
- Assistnat Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS… vs English House, KozhikodeITA 722/COCH/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2025AY 2021-22
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Jalgaon vs Amrut Nana Chaudhari, JalgaonITA 317/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026