9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Scheme does not qualify for exemption under section 10(10C), rejected the claim of the assessee - Held that: - the monetary limit prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes for filing appeals before the High Court and it does not also fall within the exceptions provided for filing appeal before the High Court, even where the tax effect is less than Rs. 2,00,000 under Circular F. No. 279/126/98-IT, dated March 27, 2000. Learned counsel appearing on either side fairly stated that the tax effect in all these cases worked out to less than Rs. 2 lakhs - if the tax effect is less than the one stated in the circular the Revenue need not agitate the issue on appeal and the circular is binding on them - appeal is dismissed - 1543/08 - - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e does not qualify for exemption under section 10(10C), rejected the claim of the assessee. Against that order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. Against that order the assessee preferred a second appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tri-bunal and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the Revenue by formulating the following common question of law : "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an adverse order, (iii) where prosecution proceedings are contemplated against the assessee, and (iv)where the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act are under challenge. 7. The Revenue had not made out a case that the issue involved in the appeal before the Tribunal falls within the exceptions provided in the cir-cular. 8. It is also pertinent to note that the judgment in which one of us is a party, in the case of the CIT v. Associated Electrical Agencies [2007] 295 ITR 496, in which, this court relying on the Supreme Court decision in CGT v. Executors and Trustees of the Estate of Late Sh. Ambalal Sarabhai reported in [1988] 170 ITR 144 under the Gift-tax Act, the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment in CIT v. Digvija ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
