ITO WD 2(1), KALYAN vs. ARUNODAYA STEEL INDUSTRIES, THANE
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 in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect of Rs. 10 lacs or less should not be filed or pressed. The circular is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s deletion of job work charges addition. The net tax demand in the appeal was Rs. 6,84,280, which is below the threshold stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.
What were the issues?
Maintainability of Revenue's appeal before the ITAT due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular. Applicability of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 to pending appeals.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:
This appeal of revenue in Cross Objection by the Assessee CO No.48/Mum/2016, are arising out of the order of CIT(A)-3, Mumbai, in appeal No. CIT(A)-3/84-THN/2015-16 dated 27-06-2016. The Assessment was framed by ITO Ward 2(1), Mumbai for the A.Y. 2007-08 vide order dated 31-03-2015 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
At the outset, it is seen that the relief allowed by CIT(A) on account of deletion of addition of Job work charges of Rs. 21,38,373/-. The net tax demand
CO No.48 /Mum/2017 Arunodaya Steel Industries; AY:07-08 will be Rs.6,84,280/-. Hence, net tax effect in this appeal of revenue on the disputed additions made by AO and deleted by CIT (A), is less than Rs. 10 lacs.
During the course of hearing before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee pointed out that in this case, the net tax demand is Rs. 6,84,280/- and thus, the tax effect in this appeal is below Rs.10.00 lacs. The learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that in view of the CBDT Circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 brought out by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the appeal was not maintainable and be dismissed. The learned Sr. DR also agreed to the facts stated by the learned Counsel for the assessee but could not point out whether this case falls under any of the exception provided in the Circular.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find from the records before us that the tax involved in the disputed issue is below Rs.10 lacs and therefore, in view of the circular No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 no appeal should be filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal which has tax effect of Rs. 10.00 lacs or less and this circular is also applicable retrospectively to all pending appeals. The relevant extract the said CBDT Circular (Supra) is as under: -
“This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed.”
Considering the above, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is therefore, dismissed.
CO No.48 /Mum/2017 Arunodaya Steel Industries; AY:07-08
Now coming to the CO No. 48/Mum/2017 of assessee. The CO is supportive of the order of CIT(A) and hence the same is dismissed as infructuous.
In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and CO of assessee is also dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on 15-03-2017.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026