ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MIKIMOTO EXPORTS (P) LTD., CHENNAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeal due to the low tax effect, which was below the monetary limit specified by the CBDT. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as non-admitted.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s order allowing a 10% deduction under Section 80HHC. The tax effect of the appeal was less than the monetary limit set by the CBDT for filing appeals.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable when the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD
आदेश / O R D E R
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Chennai, dated 26.04.2013 for the assessment year 2003-2004.
I.T.A.No.1735/Mds/2013 :- 2 -:
The crux of the ground of the Revenue is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in allowing deduction @10% u/s. 80HHC by accepting the workings furnished by the assessee.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. As seen from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the tax effect from this appeal is �3,65,698/- which is less than monetary limits fixed by the CBDT to file appeal by the Revenue as per CBDT circular No.5/2014, dated 10th July, 2014 wherein the monetary limit fixed at �4,00,000/- to file appeal before the Tribunal.
Being so, the Revenue authorities are precluded from filing of appeal in this case. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as non-admitted.
In the result, the Revenue’s appeal No. ITA 1735/Mds/2013 is dismissed.
Order pronounced on Monday, the 13th day of April, 2015, at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 80HHC
- Sheena Industries, Panipat vs ACIT Circle, PanipatITA 3076/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: Disposed26 May 2026AY 2004-2005
- Sarla Fashion Garments, New Delhi vs JCIT, Range-31, DelhiITA 1799/DEL/2006[2001-2002]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2001-2002
- M/S Vardhman Textiles Ltd vs C I T and AnrITA/517/200826 Feb 2026
- C I T vs M/S Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Helathcare LtdITA/271/20095 Feb 2026
- CIT, Chandigarh vs M/S Hindustan Unilever LtdITA/677/20085 Feb 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026