DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SONA OKEGAWA PRECISION FORGINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6682/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2016AY 2002-032 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The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should be withdrawn or not pressed. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed in limine.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT, and the assessee filed a cross-objection. The tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was less than Rs. 10 lakhs.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed based on CBDT circulars regarding low tax effect. The cross-objection became infructuous due to the dismissal of the main appeal.

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

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY

ORDER

PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1.

This appeals is filed by the Revenue. The Cross Objection is filed by the assessee. Admittedly the tax effect in Revenue’s 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 read with S.268 A of the Income Tax Act 1961, this appeal by the Revenue should have been withdrawn or should not have been pressed by the Revenue.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 this appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in limine.

3.

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in limine. 4. Since we have dismissed Revenue’s appeal in limine, assessee’s Cross Objection has become infructuous and is dismissed as such.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 05th 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 →