INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE-9(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S.EUROSHINE JEWELLERY WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED H(FORMERLY KNOWN AS HIRACO JEWELLERY (INDIA) P.LTD), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4112/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 August 2019AY 2012-133 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 the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order of the CIT(A). The Departmental Representative submitted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable before the Tribunal considering the revised monetary limits for filing appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev R. Gubgotra, D.R
Hearing: 22.08.2019Pronounced: 22.08.2019

O R D E R

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-16, Mumbai, dated 19.03.2018, which in turn arises from the assessment order passed by the A.O under Sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’), dated 23.03.2011.

2.

The ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘D.R’) at the very outset of the hearing of the appeal submitted that the ‘tax effect’ involved in the captioned appeal of the revenue was below the revised monetary limit for filing of appeals by the department before the Tribunal as provided in its Circular No. 17/2019, dated 08.08.2019.

3.

As the ‘tax effect’ in dispute in the captioned appeal is admittedly below the monetary limit of Rs.50 lacs specified in the CBDT Circular No. P a g e | Income Tax Officer-9(2)(4) Vs. M/s Euroshine Jewellery Works Pvt. Ltd. 17/2019, dated 08.08.2019, therefore, the same not being maintainable is dismissed.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.08.2019 Sd/- Sd/- (Shamim Yahya) (Ravish Sood) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER भ ुंफई Mumbai; ददन ुंक 22.08.2019 PS. Rohit आदेश की प्रतिलऱपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीर थी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. आमकय आम क्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)- 3. आमकय आम क्त / CIT 4. विब गीम प्रतततनधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भ ुंफई / 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai ग र्ड प ईर / Guard file. 6. सत्म वऩत प्रतत //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीऱीय अधिकरण, भ ुंफई / ITAT, Mumbai.

P a g e | Income Tax Officer-9(2)(4) Vs. M/s Euroshine Jewellery Works Pvt. Ltd.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →