DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. AVTEC LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6283/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2019AY 2012-132 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not have been filed or should have been withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT against an order of the CIT(A) for AY 2012-13. The tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 20 lakhs.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed due to low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars and statutory provisions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: SMT. BEENA A PILLAI & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Hearing: 16/05/2019Pronounced: 17/05/2019

ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by Revenue against order dated 03.10.2016 of Ld.CIT(A)-22, New Delhi pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13. Admittedly the tax effect in the present appeal is less than Rs.20 lakhs.

2.

In terms of CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, dated 11th July, 2018 read with S.268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Revenue should have either not filed the present appeal, or should have withdrawn the same, as tax effect in this appeal is admittedly less than Rs. 20,00,000/-.

3.

In view of the above, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed.

4.

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 17th May, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (BEENA A PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dt. 17th May, 2019 *GMV

More judgments on Section 268A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →