ACIT 17(3), MUMBAI vs. VIJAY TRADING CO., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2128/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 April 2017AY 2011-122 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 held that the appeal filed by the AO was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) appealed against the order of the CIT(A). The assessee, a property development firm, had declared income of Rs. 1.09 crore, which was assessed at Rs. 1.50 crores by the AO. The tax effect in the case was below the threshold for filing second appeals as per CBDT circular.

What were the issues?

Maintainability of the appeal filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect. Applicability of CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 254(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार /PER RAJENDRA, AM- अनुसार Challenging the order, dated 12/01/2016 of the CIT (A)-28, Mumbai, the Assessing Officer (AO) has filed the present appeal. Assessee-firm, engaged in the business of property development filed its return of income on 19/09/2011, declaring a total of Rs. 1.09 crore. The AO completed the assessment u/s.143 (3) of the Act, on 26/03/2014, determining its income at Rs. 1.50 crores.

2.

It was brought to our notice that total income, as per the order giving effect to the order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), stood at Rs. 1.26 Crores, that the tax effect in the case under consideration was below the tax limit prescribed by the CBDT, vide its Circular No.21/2015(F.No.279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt.) dated 10th December, 2015, for filing the second appeals.Considering the above, we hold that the appeal filed by the AO is not maintainable. Hence, we dismiss the same. As a result, appeal filed by Assessing Officer stands dismissed. फलतः िनधा"रती अिधकारी "ारा दािखल क" गई अपील नामंजूर क" जाती है. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th April, 2017. आदेश क" घोषणा खुले "यायालय म" "दनांक 13 अ"ैल, 2017 को क" गई । "सह /Joginder Singh) (राजे"" / RAJENDRA) (जोिग"दर जोिग"दर "सह जोिग"दर जोिग"दर "सह "सह "याियक सद"य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य मुंबई /Mumbai; "दनांक/Dated : 13.04.2017. Jv.Sr.PS.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →