DCIT 4 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. QUEST PROFIN ADVISORS PVT LTD., 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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which mandates that no appeal should be filed where the tax effect is below Rs. 50 lakhs. This circular is also applicable to pending cases.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A). During the hearing, it was noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below Rs. 50 lakhs.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal due to low tax effect as per CBDT guidelines.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE - JM:
The Revenue has filed the appeal against order of CIT(A)-9, Mumbai passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
At the time of hearing, it was brought to the knowledge of the Bench that, the tax effect in the Quest Profin Advisors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai - 2 - appeal is below Rs.50 lakhs, therefore covered by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. We find as per the CBDT Circular dated 08.08.2019, no appeal shall be filed by the revenue before the Hon’ble Tribunal where the tax effect is below Rs 50 lakhs. Further the circular of the CBDT is also applicable to the pending cases. Accordingly,we dismiss the revenue appeal on maintainability and low tax effect.
Incase, if the revenue is able to provide evidence that the case falls under any of the exceptions provided in the circular issued by the CBDT. The revenue may prefer miscellaneous application for recalling of this order, if they so desire, in which circumstances, this order shall be recalled by the Hon’ble Tribunal.
4.In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.05.2021
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026