DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VASUDHA REALTORS PVT LTD., DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3956/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2016AY 2009-102 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in terms of the CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the appeal should not have been pressed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT. The tax effect of the appeal was less than Rs. 10 lakhs. The CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with such tax effect.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI

DCIT, C.C. 2 vs. Vasudha Realtors Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 4735/11, 22, Prakash Deep bldg. Ansari road, Darya Ganj Delhi 110 002 PAN: AACCV 4339 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. T.James Singson, Sr. D.R. Respondent by : Sh. Ashu Goel, C.A. ORDER

PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1.

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. Admittedly the tax effect in the present appeal is less than Rs.10 lakhs. 1.1. In terms of CBDT Circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December,2015, F.No. 279/Misc./142/2007-ITJ(Pt.) read with S.268 A of the Income Tax Act 1961, this appeal by the Revenue should have been withdrawn or should not have been pressed by the Revenue.

2.

In view of the above the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in limine. 3. In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in limine. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12th May, 2016.

More judgments on Section 268A

All 3,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →