ACIT 10(2), MUMBAI vs. MANU M. PARPIA, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4692/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 February 2016AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per Section 268A of the Act, given the monetary limit prescribed by the Board for appeals to the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as incompetent.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an order from the CIT(A) that partly allowed the assessee's appeal against an assessment. The tax effect of the Revenue's appeal was calculated to be below Rs. 10 lacs.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal considering the monetary limit prescribed by the Board for appeals.

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 D Prabhaskar Reddy, Shri Ras Nishar
For Respondent: Shri Ras Nishar

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)-21, Mumbai (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 09.4.2012, 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.) 2009-10 vide order dated 11.11.2011.

2.

At the very outset, it was submitted by the ld. Authorized Representative (AR), the assessee’s counsel, Shri Ras Nishar (adducing a working of the tax impact of the

More judgments on Section 268A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →