What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated by CBDT circulars for pursuing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2011-12. The tax effect in dispute was less than Rs. 10 lakhs.

What were the issues?

Whether the revenue is barred from pursuing an appeal when the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT circulars.

DCIT vs Yamini Interiors P.Ltd | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJENDRA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

Hearing: 14.12.2016Pronounced: 14.12.2016

Revenue by: Ms. Anupama Singla Assessee by: Shri Pankaj Jain सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 14.12.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 14.12.2016 आदेश / O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

The revenue has filed the present appeal against the order dated 19.12.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)- 14, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”]relevant to the assessment year 2011-12.

At the time of hearing, it was pointed out by the parties that the tax effect involved in this quantum in dispute by the revenue is less

ITA No.2020/Mum/15 A.Y.2011-12 than Rs.10 lakhs. We also noticed from the working given by the assessee that the amount in dispute is Rs.26,38,979/- for A.Y.2011-12 which is expenditure disallowed by the Assessing Officer and the effect therein is less than Rs.10 lakhs. Hence in view of the CBDT circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 the revenue is barred from pursuing this appeal. Accordingly, we dismissed this appeal in limine.

In result all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14th December, 2016.

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. YAMINI INTERIORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments