What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the CBDT circular which applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Based on the low tax effect, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal.

The Department appealed an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 2011-12. The Department's representative submitted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit set by the CBDT for appeals.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the Department's appeal was maintainable given the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT.

DCIT vs Hari Om Builders & Developers… | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Kadrekar

For Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar, Shri Rajendra Kadrekar

Aforesaid appeal at the instance of the Department is directed against the order dated 29th January 2015, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–26, Mumbai, for assessment year 2011–12.

At the outset, the learned Departmental Representative submitted before us that the tax effect pertaining to the amount disputed by the Department is less than the monitory limit of ` 10 lakh

2 Hari Om Builders & Developers fixed by the CBDT in Circular no.21 of 2015 dated 10th December 2015, in relation to appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions of the learned Departmental Representative and also finding that the CBDT circular under reference applies retrospectively, even to pending appeals, we dismiss the appeal of the Department as not maintainable.

In the result, appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16.12.2016

DCIT 28(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. HARI OM BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, NAVI MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments