ITO (E)-II(1), MUMBAI vs. KASTURBAI WALCHAND TRUST, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5614/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 April 2016AY 2003-042 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 to the Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed as incompetent.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order of the CIT(A) that 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 given the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT instructions.

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 AMIT SHUKLA, JM

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Javed

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)-I, Mumbai (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 25.5.2011, allowing the Assessee’s appeal contesting its assessment u/s.143(3) r/w s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2003-04 vide order dated 06.12.2010.

2.

None appeared for and behalf of the assessee-respondent when the appeal was called out for hearing, despite service of notice of hearing sent through RPAD. At the very outset, it was observed by the Bench that the tax effect of the Revenue’s appeal

More judgments on Section 268A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →