What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circulars, which set monetary limits for filing appeals, apply retrospectively. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT against an order of the CIT(A). The Departmental Representative submitted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.

What were the issues?

Maintainability of the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT based on the tax effect and the retrospective applicability of CBDT circulars.

ACIT vs M/S Keppel Puravankara… | ITAT Bangalore 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘ B ’

Before: SHRI A. K. GARODIA & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehta, C. A

For Respondent: Shri Shahnawazul Rahman, JCIT

Hearing: 12.02.2020

O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia, A.M. : This appeal at the instance of the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Bengaluru, dt.22.06.2016 for Assessment Year 2012 – 13.

The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue submitted that in this appeal, the tax effect pertaining to the amount disputed by the Revenue is less than the monetary limit of Rs.50 lakhs fixed by the CBDT in Circular No.17/2019, dt.08.08.2019, which is in supersession of its Circular No.03/2018 dt.11.07.2018 and Amendment dated 20.08.2018, in relation to filing of appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Taking into consideration the above, and also the fact that the CBDT Circular under reference applies retrospectively even to pending appeals, we hold that the above listed appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limine.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S KEPPEL PURAVANKARA DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments