What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT. The tax effect involved in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The Departmental Representative conceded this fact.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeal was maintainable given the tax effect was below the CBDT's prescribed monetary limit.

ACIT vs Livingstones | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K”, BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, AM & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kishnadwala

For Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy (Sr.AR), Shri Anuj Kishnadwala

Hearing: 04/01/2016Pronounced: 08/01/2016

PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: The above appeal is filed by the Assessing Officer (AO) raising various grounds of appeal for the assessment years mentioned above. The tax effect involved in the above referred case is below the monetary limit (Rs. 10,00,000/-) prescribed by the Central Board of Director Taxes(CBDT), vide its Circular No.21/2015(F.No.142/2007- ITJ (Pt.) dated 10th December, 2015. 2. Shri Anuj Kishnadwala appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Departmental Representative (DR) on a query by the Bench fairly conceded that the tax effect involved in the above case was less than Rs. 10.00 lacs. Considering these facts, we dismiss the appeal holding them as not maintainable.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 08/01/2016. (PRAMOD KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 08/01/2016 SK, PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

""यथ" / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु"त(अपील) / The CIT(A), Mumbai. 4. आयकर आयु"त / CIT "वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt.

ASST CIT 19(2),MUMBAI vs. LIVINGSTONES, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments