What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable because the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT.

The Assessing Officer filed an appeal for the assessment year 2010-11. Both the Departmental Representative and the Assessee's Authorized Representative conceded that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable when the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT.

ITO vs Pilot Construction P.Ltd | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य राजे�� राजे�� केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार PER RAJENDRA, AM- लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य राजे�� राजे�� अनुसार अनुसार The above appeal was filed by the Assessing Officer (AO) raising various grounds of appeal

for the above mentioned assessment year.The tax effect involved in this appeal is below the monetary limit,(Rs.10,00,000/-) prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), vide its Circular No.21/2015(F.No.279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt.) dated 10th December, 2015.

2. The Departmental Representative (DR) and Authorised Representatives (AR),who appeared before the Bench, fairly conceded that the tax involved in the above appeal was less than Rs.10.00 lacs. Considering these facts,we dismiss the appeal holding it as not maintainable. As a result, appeal filed by the Assessing Officer stands dismissed. फलतः िनधा�रती अिधकारी �ारा दािखल क� गई अपील नामंजूर क� जाती है. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th May,2016. आदेश क� घोषणा खुले �यायालय म� �दनांक 16 मई, 2016 को क� गई । Sd/- Sd/- जोिग�दर जोिग�दर जोिग�दर �सह जोिग�दर �सह �सह /Joginder Singh) (राजे�� / RAJENDRA) �सह �याियक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER सद�य मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांकDated : 16.05.2016. Jv.Sr.PS. आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेश आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत 1.Appellant /अपीलाथ�

2. Respondent /��यथ� 3.The concerned CIT(A)/संब� अपीलीय आयकर आयु�, 4.The concerned CIT /संब� आयकर आयु�

ITANo.4982/M/14

ITO 10(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. PILOT CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments