ITO WARD -20 (3) vs. ANJU JAIN,
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 as the tax effect was less than Rs. 10 lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular's instructions are binding on the department.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition made under Section 68 and a related commission payment. The tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit set by the CBDT 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 by the CBDT.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S.SIDHU & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
Assessee by : Sh. SK Jain, DR Revenue by: None Date of Hearing 28/02/2017 Date of pronouncement 28/02/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal filed by the Department is directed against the order of the ld CIT(A)-XXII, New Delhi dated 04/12/2007 for the Assessment Year 1999-2000. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1929696/- made by the AO treating the credit entry as accommodation entry in the account of the assessee u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961.
2. The ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 28945/- being the amount of commission paid to purchase the accommodation entry of Rs. 1929696/-.”
3. At the outset of the hearing itself, the ld. DR brought to our attention that CBDT vide Circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 has decided that the revenue would not prefer an appeal before the Tribunal if the tax effect is less than Rs.10 lakhs. Therefore, he pleaded that the appeal of the revenue be decided as per the instruction of the CBDT. Ld AR also reiterated same facts.
4. We have heard both the sides on the issue and perused the material. We find that the CBDT vide circular dated 10.12.2015 has revised the monetary limit for filing the appeal by the department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court. The relevant para of the aforesaid circular is reproduced as under :-
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026