DCIT 15(1), MUMBAI vs. ALFA DEAL, 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 held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect involved was less than Rs. 10.00 lac, which was below the revised monetary limit specified by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal against an order related to assessment year 2007-08. The appeal was filed before the ITAT Mumbai Bench.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH "A", MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5365/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2007-08) The DCIT-15(1), Room No: 104, Matru Mandir, Mumbai -400 007 . Appellant Vs. Ms Alfa Deal 233/234, Belasis road, Keddy Shopping Centre, Mumbai 400008 Respondent PAN: AAHFAS2ZZA Appellant by Shri. A.K Dhondial Respondent by None Date of hearing 24/10/2016 Date of pronouncement 24/01/2017 ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M: The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue pertaining to assessment year 2007-08 is directed against an order passed by CITIA)-26, Mumbai, dated 03/06/2014, which in turn, arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under Sec: 271(1)c) r.w.s 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act' ) dated. 28.03.2012. 2 ITA No.5603/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2011-12) 2 At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal; it was submitted by the Ld. D.R that as the tax effect involved in this appeal was Iess than Rs.1O.OO lac, therefore the appeal was not maintainable: The CBDT vide Circular No.21/2015, dated 10/12/2015 has revised the monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before the Income-tax appellate tribunal, retrospectively: Since the tax effect in dispute in the captioned appeal is stated to be below the monetary limit of Rs.10.OO lac specified in the CBDT Circular; dated 10/12/2015 (supra), the same is dismissed as not maintainable: 3 In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed: Order pronounced in the open court on 24/01/2017 - (R.C SHARMA) (RAVISH SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 24/01/2017 Copyof the Order fonwarded to 1 2. 3 The Appellant The Respondent: The CIT(A)-26 CIT DR, ITAT, Mumbai Guard file: 4 5 6_ BY ORDER, Ifll (Dy-[Asstt: Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- 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
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026