What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 10 lakh. In view of CBDT instruction No. 21 of 2015, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Revenue was aggrieved by an order of the First Appellate Authority. During the hearing, it was brought to the tribunal's notice that the tax effect in the appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the Revenue's appeal should be entertained given the low tax effect, in light of CBDT instructions.

DCIT vs Leighton Contractors (I) P.Ltd | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jain

For Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje

Hearing: 04/02/2016

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13/08/2012 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai.

During hearing of this appeal, Shri Ashish Jain, ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset, brought to our notice that the tax effect in the appeal is below prescribed monetary limit. This factual matrix was not controverted by the ld. DR, Shri G.N. Makwana.

2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is noted that in this case, the tax effect is below prescribed limit of Rs.10 lakh, therefore, in view of, CBDT instruction No.21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015 (F No.279/Misc./142/2007-IT(PT), with retrospective effect, wherein, the Board has advised/directed the Department not to file appeal in the cases where the tax effect does not exceed the following monetary limit.:-

Sl. Appeals in Income –tax matters Monetary Limit (in Rs.) No. 1. Before ITAT 10,00,000/- 2. U/s 260 A before Hon’ble High 20,00,000/- Court 3. Before Hon’ble Supreme Court 25,00,000/-

Considering the aforesaid instruction and the factual matrix that the tax effect is less than Rs.10,00,000/-, as admitted/canvassed by the representative from both sides, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable. This Order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 04/02/2016.

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS (I) P.LTD, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments