ITO, WD-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI KAUSHIK MUKHERJEE, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeal was below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT for filing appeals. Following CBDT instructions, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue preferred an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) concerning the assessment year 2011-2012. The appeal raised grounds related to Section 54, Section 55A, and the failure to furnish documentary evidence for brokerage paid.
What were the issues?
Whether the tax effect of the appeal falls within the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal, and if not, whether the appeal should be dismissed as per CBDT instructions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A(SMC
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap
This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata dated 07.09.2015 for the assessment year 2009-10 on the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and & circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that as per Section 54(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the deduction will be allowed only for a residential house includes only one flat and not more.
2. That on the facts & circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact in view of sub-clause (ii) of Section 55A of the Act, the A.O. may refer the valuation to the DVO if having regard to the nature of assets and other relevant circumstances, it is necessary so to do & by claiming higher cost of acquisition, the assessee had reduced the Long Term Capital Gain.
3. That on the facts & circumstances of the case an as per law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that ./2015 Assessment year: 2011-2012 Page 2 of 3
during the whole proceedings, the assessee has failed to furnish any documentary evidence in respect of brokerage paid of Rs.2,34,OOO/- i.e. signed copy of confirmation of the party, ledger account of the transaction in the books of the party or the assessee, bank statement showing this transaction. 4. The appellant craves for leave to ad, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing”.
2 As pointed out by the ld. counsel for the assessee at the outset, the tax effect involved in this appeal of the Revenue is less than the revised monetary limit recently fixed by the CBDT vide Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 at Rs.10,00,000/- for filing the appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal and this position clearly evident from the grounds raised by the Revenue in this appeal is not disputed even by the ld. D.R. In Circular No. 21/2015 (supra) recently issued by the CBDT, the monetary limit for filing the appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal has been increased to Rs.10,00,000/- and as clarified in the said Circular, the said monetary limit is applicable retrospectively even to the appeals pending before the Tribunal. The CBDT has also instructed that such pending appeals below this specified tax limit of Rs.10,00,000/- may be withdrawn/ not pressed. Keeping in view the instruction given by the CBDT vide Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, which is squarely applicable in the present case, the appeal filed by the Revenue in this case is treated as withdrawn/not pressed and dismissed accordingly.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on July 27, 2016.
More judgments on Section 54
- Renu Arun Talwar, Mumbai vs Circle 17(1), MumbaiITA 204/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad vs Manan Arati Patel, AhmedabadITA 923/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Rohitbhai Jivrambhai Patel, Vadodara vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(2), VadodaraITA 679/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Rohitbhai Jivrambhai Patel, Vadodara vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(2), VadodaraITA 679/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Dy. Commissioner of Income… vs Thomas Myladiyil Augustine, AhmedabadITA 1131/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026