ACIT 18(3), MUMBAI vs. MADHAVI G. GHURYE, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6637/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 February 2016AY 2006-072 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the Board. The Departmental Representative conceded to this fact.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an order of the CIT(A) which had partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The assessee's appeal contested an assessment made under sections 143(3) and 147 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2006-07.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the Revenue's appeal was maintainable given the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals to the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A,Section 143(3),Section 147

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 Randhir Gupta, Shri R. K. Bothra
For Respondent: Shri R. K. Bothra

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)-29, Mumbai (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 12.7.2011, partly 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.) 2006-07 vide order dated 23.12.2009.

2.

At the very outset, it was submitted by the ld. Authorized Representative (AR), the assessee’s counsel, Shri R. K. Bothra, that the tax effect of the Revenue’s appeal is below Rs.10 lacs, and which is therefore not maintainable u/s. 268A of the Act in

More judgments on Section 268A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →