DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3789/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 April 2017AY 1991-922 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 dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The appeal was held to be not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A). The tax effect involved in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable when the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCHMUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI PAWAN SINGHDr. Annie Besant Road, Worli,

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Somaiya (AR)
For Respondent: Shri Suman kumar, Shri Hitesh Somaiya (AR)
Hearing: 25/04/2017

Date of Hearing : 25/04/2017 Date of Pronouncement: 25 /04/2017 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JM:

This appeal under Section 253 of Income-tax Act is filed by the Revenue. The revenue has raised on one ground of appeal that ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 744,535/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act. We have seen that the tax effect involve in the appeal is below the monetary limit of Rs.10,00,000/- as prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes(CBDT), vide its Circular No.21/2015(F.No.142/2007-ITJ (Pt.) dated 10th December, 2015.

2.

Shri Hitesh Somaiya (AR) hasappeared on behalf of the assessee. The Departmental Representative (DR) fairly conceded that the tax effect involved in the present case is less than 10.00 lacs. Considering these facts, we dismiss the appeal holding them as not maintainable u/s. 268A of the Income-tax Act.

3.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 25/04/2017.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →