What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. The Department's appeal was also dismissed as not maintainable due to the low tax effect.

The assessee company wished to withdraw its appeal, and the Department had no objection. The tax effect involved was below the CBDT's monetary limit for appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee and whether the Department's appeal is maintainable below a certain tax effect.

DCIT vs Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd, Navi… | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.2419/Mum/2014

I.T.A.No. 2425/Mum/2014

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखाकार सद�य सद�य राजे�� राजे�� केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार PER Rajendra,A.M.- लेखाकार लेखाकार लेखाकार सद�य सद�य राजे�� राजे�� अनुसार अनुसार The above cross-appeal was filed by the Assessing Officer(AO)and the Assessee- company challenging the order,dtd.09.01.2014,of the CIT(A)-22,Mumbai.

2.During the course of hearing before us,the Authorised Representative(AR)stated that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal and wants to withdraw it.The Departmental Representative(DR)stated that he had no objection,if withdrawal was allowed.

Considering the above,appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed as withdrawn. 3.It was noticed that tax effect involved in the case under consideration was below the monetary limit,(Rs.10,00,000/-),prescribed by the Central Board of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/- -2425/M/14Alkyl Amines 4.During the course of hearing before us,the Departmental Representative (DR)fairly conceded that the tax involved in the appeal was less than Rs.10.00 lacs.Considering these facts,we dismiss the appeal holding it as not maintainable.

DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI vs. ALKYL AMINES CHEMICALS LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

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