DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA MARKETING COMPANY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2274/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 June 2016AY 2008-093 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should be withdrawn or not pressed. The assessee's cross-objection was also withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT, while the assessee filed a cross-objection. The tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was less than Rs. 10 lakhs.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal, with a tax effect below the prescribed limit, should be dismissed. The assessee withdrew its cross-objection.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA & SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE

Hearing: 29.06.2016Pronounced: 29.06.2016

This appeals is filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection is filed by the assessee. Admittedly the tax effect in Revenue’s appeal is less than Rs.10 lakhs.

2.

In terms of CBDT Circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December,2015, F.No. 279/Misc./142/2007-ITJ(Pt.) read with S.268 A of the Income Tax Act 1961, this appeal by the Revenue should have been withdrawn or should not have been pressed by the Revenue.

3.

The Ld. AR submitted that since the Appeal of the Revenue is less than Rs. 10 lakhs, the appeal has to be dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is withdrawn by the Ld. AR.

4.

In result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 29th of June , 2016.

More judgments on Section 268A

All 3,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →