ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GULSHAN POLYOLS LTD., DELHI
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 CBDT circular on pecuniary limits has statutory force and is binding on the department. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT. During the hearing, the Revenue's representative conceded that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015. The assessee's representative also argued that the appeal was not maintainable.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT given the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT circular.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu
ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M. : This appeal by the Revenue arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A)- XV, New Delhi dated 28.10.2014 in relation to the captioned assessment year.
During the course of hearing, the ld. DR, although supported the order of the Assessing Officer, but fairly agreed that the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than Rs.10,00,000/- and by virtue of Circular of CBDT No. 21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015, the monetary limit has been revised to Rs.10,00,000/- for not filing appeals by the department before the Tribunal. The ld. AR, on the other hand, submitted that the present appeal is not maintainable by virtue of above circular of CBDT.
ITA No. 230/Del./2015 2
After going through the material on record, we find that the above circular of CBDT on pecuniary limit has now statutory force within the provisions of section 268A of the IT Act. These instructions are operative retrospectively to the pending appeals also. It goes without saying that the Board’s instructions or directions issued to the income-tax authorities are binding upon them. Going by the prescription of the afore-noted Circular, and without going into merits of the case, we dismiss the instant appeal filed by the Revenue as tax effect involved in this appeal is less than Rs.10.00 lacs.
More judgments on Section 268A
- Income Tax Officer, Ajmer vs Hemant Kumar Sharma, AjmerITA 1506/JPR/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Income Tax Officer, Indore vs Aashta Doshi, IndoreITA 789/IND/2025[2024-25]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Income Tax Officer Ward -1(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs Khushal Madhavlal Darji, AhmedabadITA 82/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mehsana vs Hemantkumar Faljibhai Chaudhary, MehsanaITA 475/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Dy. CIT-4(1), Indore vs Kiran Bajpai, IndoreITA 426/IND/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
