ITO 23(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. KANJI DEVA PATEL, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4877/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2016AY 2005-062 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the monetary limit prescribed by the Board for appeals filed by the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) which allowed the assessee's appeal. The tax effect of the Revenue's appeal was below Rs. 10 lacs.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal considering the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM

For Appellant: Ms. Arju Garodia, Shri Subodh Ratnaparakhi
For Respondent: Shri Subodh Ratnaparakhi

O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This is an Appeal by the Revenue directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Mumbai (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 03.4.2013, allowing the Assessee’s appeal contesting its assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2005-06 vide order dated 26.12.2007.

More judgments on Section 268A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →