What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable because the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The appeal filed by the Assessing Officer was therefore dismissed.

The Assessing Officer filed an appeal before the ITAT. Both the Departmental Representative and the Assessee's Authorized Representative conceded that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal is maintainable before the ITAT when the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT.

ITO vs Nikunj Developers, Thane | ITAT Mumbai 2016

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 A.M.- अनुसार The above appeal was filed by the Assessing Officer (AO) raising various grounds of appeal

for the above mentioned assessment year.The tax effect involved in this appeal is below the monetary limit,(Rs.10,00,000/-) prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), vide its Circular No.21/2015(F.No.279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt.) dated 10th December, 2015.

2. The Departmental Representative (DR) and Authorised Representatives (AR),who appeared before the Bench, fairly conceded that the tax involved in the above appeal was less than Rs.10.00 lacs. Considering these facts,we dismiss the appeal holding it as not maintainable. As a result, appeal filed by the Assessing Officer stands dismissed. फलतः िनधा"रती अिधकारी "ारा दािखल क" गई अपील नामंजूर क" जाती है. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th November, 2016. आदेश क" घोषणा खुले "यायालय म" "दनांक 28 नवंबर, 2016 को क" गई । (अमरजीत "सह / Amarjit Singh ) (राजे"" / Rajendra) "याियक सद"य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER सद"य मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांकDated : 28. 11.2016. Jv.Sr.PS.

ITO WD 4(3), THANE vs. NIKUNJ DEVELOPERS, THANE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments