ACIT CIR 22(1), MUMBAI vs. MAVANI AND SONS, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 823/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 February 2016AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as its tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the Board for appeals to the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an order from the CIT(A) which had allowed the assessee's appeal. The assessee's counsel argued that the tax effect of the Revenue's appeal was below Rs. 10 lacs.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the Revenue's appeal was maintainable before the Tribunal based on the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM & SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM

For Appellant: Shri M. Rajan, Shri Hitesh M. Shah
For Respondent: Shri Hitesh M. Shah

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)-33, Mumbai (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 23.11.2012, allowing the Assessee’s appeal contesting its assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2009-10 vide order dated 22.12.2011.

2.

At the very outset, it was submitted by the ld. Authorized Representative (AR), the assessee’s counsel, Shri Hitesh M. Shah (adducing a working of the tax impact of the instant appeal, showing the same at Rs.9,04,888/-), that the tax effect of the Revenue’s appeal is below Rs.10 lacs, and which is therefore not maintainable u/s.

More judgments on Section 268A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →