ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. AJAY GUPTA, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the fact that the tax effect did not exceed the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular, making the appeals not maintainable.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed appeals for Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The tax effect in these appeals was below the monetary limit specified by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.
What were the issues?
Whether appeals filed by the Revenue are maintainable when the tax effect is below the monetary limit specified by CBDT circulars.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA&
PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
These are appeals filed by the Revenue directed against the order dt. 29.1.2014 of Ld.CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi for Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07 pertaining to the same assessee. 1.1. The tax effect in these appeals by the Revenue does not exceed the monetary limit of Rs.10 lakhs specified in recent 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. Further in this CBDT Circular, at para 10 it is specified that the Instruction will apply retrospectively, to all pending appeals.
& 2116/Del/14 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 Sh. Ajay Gupta, N.Del 2. The Ld.Sr.D.R. could not controvert the fact that the tax effect on the quantum of income in dispute is below the monetary limit of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lakhs only) for both the A.Ys 2005-06 and 2006-07.
2.1. Hence we dismiss these appeals filed by the Revenue for the A.Ys 2005-06 and 2006-07, on the ground that the tax effect in the present appeals does not exceed the monetary limit specified by the 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, and hence not maintainable.
2.2. In case there is a mistake in the calculation or if the case is covered by any of the exception specified in the Circular the revenue may file a Misc. Application u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 pointing out the mistake and if the Bench is convinced of the mistake, this order will be recalled and the appeals restored for fresh disposal on merits.
In the result both the Revenue’s appeals for the A.Ys 2005-06 and 2006-07, are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 08th February, 2016.
More judgments on Section 268A
- Income Tax Officer, Ajmer vs Hemant Kumar Sharma, AjmerITA 1506/JPR/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Income Tax Officer, Indore vs Aashta Doshi, IndoreITA 789/IND/2025[2024-25]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Income Tax Officer Ward -1(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs Khushal Madhavlal Darji, AhmedabadITA 82/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mehsana vs Hemantkumar Faljibhai Chaudhary, MehsanaITA 475/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Dy. CIT-4(1), Indore vs Kiran Bajpai, IndoreITA 426/IND/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026