ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI GANESH POOJARI, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2206/DEL/2012Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 April 2016AY 2007-082 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 CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should be withdrawn or not pressed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT. The tax effect in this appeal was less than Rs. 10 lakhs. The Revenue's appeal was filed against the assessee, Sh. Ganesh Poojari.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular and statutory provisions.

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 ‘C’, NEW DELHI

ITO, Ward 46(1) vs. Sh. Ganesh Poojari Room no.427 B, 24 C, MIG Flat Mayur Bhavan Rajouri Garden New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AJFPP 4060 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr.D.R. Respondent by : Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Adv. ORDER

PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1.

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. Admittedly the tax effect in this appeal by the Revenue 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 read with S.268 A of the Income Tax Act 1961, this appeal by the Revenue should have been withdrawn or should not have been pressed by the Revenue.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. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19th April, 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 →