ITO 25(2)(3), NAVI MUMBAI vs. SHREE BALKRISHNA ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5266/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 June 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 noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit and the Departmental Representative conceded this fact. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for assessment year 2007-08. The tax effect involved in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeal filed by the Revenue was maintainable given the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

Hearing: 27.6.2016Pronounced: 27.6.2016

स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ PAN : ABEFS9722L अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Revenue by Shri J Saravanan प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Assessee by Ms. Vidhi Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 27.6.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement:27.6.2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, A. M: This is an appeal filed by the revenue challenging the order dated 3.5.2013 of ld.CIT(A)-35, Mumbai, for assessment year 2007-08.

2.

We find from the orders of authorities below that the tax effect involved in the above referred case is below the monetary limit (Rs. 10,00,000/-) prescribed by the Central Board of Director Taxes(CBDT), vide its Circular No.21/2015(F.No.l42/2007- ITJ (Pt.) dated 10th December, 2015.

3.

Ms.Vidhi Gupta appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Departmental Representative (DR) on a query by the Bench fairly conceded that the tax effect

2 5266/Mum/2013 involved in the above case is less than Rs. 10.00 lacs. Considering these facts, we dismiss the appeal holding it as not maintainable u/s. 268A of the Act. 4. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 268A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →