ITO 20(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR M. SHAH, MUMBAI

आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.147/Mum/2015, िनधा�रण िनधा�रण वष� वष� / Assessment Year: 2010-11 िनधा�रण िनधा�रण वष� वष� Asst. CIT-19(2), 2nd Floor, Om Anand Exports, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, DW-3200, Bharat Diamond Bourse, बनाम/ Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra (E), बनाम बनाम बनाम Vs. Mumbai-400 051 PAN:AAAFO 4473 B आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2349/Mum/2015, िनधा�रण िनधा�रण वष� वष� / Assessment Year: 2009-10 िनधा�रण िनधा�रण वष� वष� ITO-28(2)(2), 3rd Floor, Room No. 307, Mahesh Ladha Karotra Tower No. 6, Vashi Rly. Station Complex, 102, Neelakanth Apartment, Plot No. 42, बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Sector-19, Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400 706 Vs. PAN:AJRPK 7314 F & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5334/Mum/2015, िनधा�रण िनधा�रण वष� वष� / Assessment Year: 2011-12 िनधा�रण िनधा�रण वष� वष� Dy. CIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Knight Frank (I) Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, 1st Floor, Paville House, Near Twin बनाम/ M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Tower, Off Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabha बनाम बनाम बनाम Vs. Devi, Mumbai PAN:AAACK 1544 J (अपीलाथ� /Appellant) (��यथ� / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy Assessee by: None सुनवाई क� तारीख / Date of Hearing:29.12.2015 घोषणा क� तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क� क� धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ�तग�त अ�तग�त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क� क� धारा धारा अ�तग�त अ�तग�त आदेश आदेश Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) खंडपीठ केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार PER Bench- खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ अनुसार अनुसार The above appeals were filed by the Assessing Officers (AO.s) raising various grounds of appeal for the assessment years mentioned above. The tax effect involved in all the above referred cases is below the monetary limit,(Rs.10,00,000/-) prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT),vide its Circular No.21/2015(F.No.279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt.) dated 10th December, 2015.

2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, as stated earlier. The Departmental Representative (DR),on a query by the Bench,fairly conceded that the tax involved in all the above ten cases was less than Rs.10.00 lacs. Considering these facts,we dismiss the appeals holding them as not maintainable.