INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S UAS EMPLOYEES HOUSING BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE
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 held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. The additions made by the AO were under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Both parties agreed that the tax effect was below the CBDT's monetary limit for appeals.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal given the tax effect is below the CBDT's prescribed monetary limit.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENGALURU BENCH B, BENGALURU
Before: SHRI. A. K. GARODIA
PER LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT (A), Bengaluru -6, dt.22.03.2017, for the assessment year 29.04.2016, on the following grounds of appeal ITA.1612/Bang/2017 Page - 2
2. From the assessment order it is clear that the additions were made u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act, to the extent of Rs.36,84,692/-, and the tax determined on this addition was Rs.19,88,427/-.
ITA.1612/Bang/2017 Page - 3
The Ld. DR has submitted that the case is required to be sent back to the assessee as both the CIT (A) has not verified whether the interest earned by the assessee by depositing the amount in a bank was from the investment made by the assessee out of its own fund or from borrowed fund / liability. 04. At the outset, both the Id. AR for the assessee and DR for the Revenue submitted before the Bench that/the tax effect pertaining to the amount disputed by the Revenue is less than the monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakh fixed by the CBDT in Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11/07/2018, which is in supersession of its Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10/12/2015, in relation to filing of appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions of both the Id. Authorized Representative for the assessee and the Departmental Representative for the Revenue and also the fact that the CBDT Circular under reference applies retrospectively even to pending appeals, we hold that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limine.
More judgments on Section 80P(2)(d)
- Duddukuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative… vs ITO, Ward - 1, TadepalligudemITA 258/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- S R P Jutha 13 Rajkot VI and Gr S Ma, Rajkot vs ITO WD 1(2)(1) Rajkot, RajkotITA 951/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Poonam Chambers B Wing Commercial Premises… vs Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, MumbaiITA 7044/MUM/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
- Poonam Chambers B Wing Commercial Premises… vs Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, MumbaiITA 7043/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Suvarnakarara Co-Operative Society Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, KarwarITA 210/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026