DCIT-15(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. LUXORA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., MUMBAI
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 noted that the tax effect was less than ₹.50 Lakhs, which falls below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, following CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024, the appeal needs to be dismissed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) which deleted an addition of ₹.1,18,29,500/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of share application money. The tax effect of the dispute was less than ₹.50 Lakhs.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal filed by the revenue should be dismissed based on the CBDT circular regarding the monetary limit for filing appeals.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HONBLE & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HONBLEShri Rohithaksha Devadiga Shri Ajay Chandra
O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (AM)
This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order dated 08.06.2023 by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld. CIT(A)”] pertaining to A.Y.2010-11.
(A.Y: 2010-11) Luxora Infrastructure Pvt., Ltd., 2. The Solitary grievance of the revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹.1,18,29,500/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) on account of share application money.
A perusal of the aforementioned grievance show that the tax effect would be less than ₹.50 Lakhs. Therefore, this appeal by the revenue has to be dismissed in the light to of the CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024 dated 15.03.2024 by which the Board has prescribed the limit for filing the appeal by the revenue before the Tribunal where tax effect is more than ₹.50 Lakhs. In the light of the CBDT Circular the appeal is dismissed.
In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16th May, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai / Dated 16.05.2024 Giridhar, Sr.PS
Page No. 2
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 →- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
