DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DELHI vs. ROMESH SHARMA, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 582/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 October 2025AY 1999-2000Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was primarily because the tax effect of the appeal was less than the minimum prescribed by the CBDT's latest Circular No. 9/2024, which was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue's appeal concerned a cash expenditure disallowance of Rs.1,26,28,000/- made by the Assessing Officer, which was deleted by the CIT(A). The appeal arose from assessment year 1999-2000.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to not meeting the minimum tax effect threshold prescribed by CBDT circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 158BC,Section 254

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Hearing: 16.10.2025Pronounced: 16.10.2025

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 1999-2000, arises against the CIT(A)-31, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1070337193(1) dated 13.11.2024, in proceedings u/s 158BC r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

Coming to the Revenue’s sole substantive ground seeking to revive the Assessing Officer’s action making the assessee’s cash expenditure payments disallowance of Rs.1,26,28,000/- which has been deleted in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion, we note that the necessary tax thereon comes to be

4.

Learned Departmental Representative is indeed very fair in not disputing the fact that the CBDT's foregoing tax effect circular has been made applicable with retrospective effect on all pending appeals as well. We thus reject the Revenue's instant appeal for this precise reason subject to all just exceptions.

More judgments on Section 158BC

All 487 judgments and leading authorities on Section 158BC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →