ITO 27(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. SHRI JILESH DEEPAK PAREKH, 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 noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
What were the facts?
The revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2009-10. The assessee's representative pointed out that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether the revenue's appeal was maintainable given the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
1. 1. This appeal by revenue under section 253 of Income Tax Act is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, [CIT(A)], Navi Mumbai dated 22.06.2018, which in turn arises from the assessment order passed under section 143(3) rws 147 for Assessment Year 2009-10.
2. At the outset of hearing, the ld. Authorized representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is below Rs. 50,00,000/- i.e. the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that admittedly the tax effect involved in the present appeal is less Mum 2018-Shri Jilesh Deepak Parekh. only of Rs. 40,961/- . Therefore, the present appeal is squarely covered by the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August 2019.
3. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue after going through the grounds of appeal submitted that though the tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than the monetary limit of tax effect fixed by CBDT in a recent circular, however, the revenue may be given liberty to get the appeal revived in case at the later stage it is discovered that the ground of appeal is covered by any exception clause of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July 2018.
4. Considering the submissions of both the ld. representatives of the parties, we find that tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- fixed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, therefore, the appeal of revenue is dismissed being not maintainable. However, the revenue is given liberty to get the appeal revived in case, if it is discovered that the present appeal is covered by any exception clause of CBDT Circular No.3/2018 dated 11th July 2018.
5. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
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 →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026