THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECI ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This dismissal was based on the monetary limits for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court against an ITAT order for AY 1998-99. The tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable given the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals to the High Court.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO I.IANDIKONDA INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 115 OF 2017 Appeal Under Section 260 A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 aggrieved by the order of the lncome-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench-B, Hyderabad dated 21-04-2011 in l.T.A-No. 12791 Hydl20'10 ( Assessment Year 1998- ee) Between: The Commissioner of lncome Tax -ll, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT AND M/s. ECI Engineering & Construction Co.Ltd., Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: MS. J- SUNITHA, Standing Counsel for lncome Tax Department Counsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED The Gourt delivered the following Judgment : l I
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSINGRAONANDIKONbA INCOME TA)( TRIBUNAL APPEA No.115 OF 2Ol7 L JUDGMENT: @e. Hon'hte sn rusttce esam Koshlt) Hear.: lvls.J.Sull-tha, learned Stzincli'rg Courisel for Income Tax' appearing on behalf of the appellant 2. The instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act' 1961, has been prcferred by the Revenue as the appellant against the order datetl 2 1.04.20 11 passed by the Income Tar Appellate Tribunal' HyderabaC "B" Bench, Hyderabad ' in I'T'A No'1279 lHydl20L0 for the Assessmen'r Year 1 998-99. 3.CentralBoardofDirectTaxes(CBDT)hasissuedCircularNo.9of 2024 d.aled 1,7 .Og .2024, amending the pre uious Circuiar No'S of 2024 dated 15.O3.2 O2+, by further enhancing thc monetary limits for filing appeals tr1' the Incorne Tax Deparlmer'-t before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunals, High Courts arrl Supreme Cc'urt as a measure for reducing li'.igation. In paragraph 2 of the said Circular' we find that the monetary lirnit fixed for flling arr appeal before the High Court is Rs.2.O0 crore. \ t J I I ; I I i
Page 2 of 3 4- In the instant appeal, tax effect is well below the monetary limit. 5. Therefore, the appeal hled by the Revenue is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid Circular Nr.9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024. However, if the appeal comes within the exception of Circular No.S of 2024, it would be open to the Income Tax Department to seek revival of the appeal. No costs. 6. As a sequel, misceilaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. SD'. V //TRUE COPY/I SECTION OFFICER Appellate Tribunal' Hyderabad Benih B' HYderabad Sunitha,standing Counsel for lncome Tax DePartment.[oPucl .S.S.C.S.M. SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR To 1. The lncome Tax 2. One CC to Ms. J 3. Two CD CoPies kul/gh './, /r/
HIGH COURT DATED:1010412025 JUDGMENT ITTA.No.115 of 2017 4 44 g // 7/1 DISMISSING THE ITTA WTHOUT COSTS : --:i::::: -
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026