What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal. This was based on the CBDT circular which applies retrospectively to pending appeals and sets a monetary limit for appeals.

The Department appealed an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 2008-09. Both parties agreed that the tax effect of the disputed amounts was below the monetary limit set by the CBDT for appeals.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the Department's appeal was maintainable given the low tax effect and the applicability of the CBDT circular.

ACIT vs Rameshchandra Jasraj Jain, Thane | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh P. Shah

For Respondent: Ms. Sudha Ramchandran, Shri Jignesh P. Shah

Instant appeal of the Department is directed against the order dated 13th August 2013, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–II, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2008–09.

Both the parties agreed before us that the tax effect pertaining to the amounts disputed by the Department is less than the monetory limit of ` 10 lakh fixed by the CBDT in Circular no.21 of 2015 dated

2 Shri Rameshchandra Jasraj Jain 10th December 2015, in relation to appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions of the learned Departmental Representative and also finding that the CBDT circular under reference applies retrospectively, even to pending appeals, we dismiss the appeal of the Department as not maintainable.

In the result, appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.04.2016

ASST CIT CIR 4, THANE vs. RAMESHCHANDRA JASRAJ JAIN, THANE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments