9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 4,50,000 as submitted by Mr. Chaitanya and Rs. 6,22,000 as determined by the Assessing Officer, is nevertheless less than Rs. 10,00,000. Hence, the appeal cannot be entertained. - Held that:- As we have noticed that a large number of appeals have been disposed of by this court on such premise, this appeal is also dismissed as not tenable, reserving liberty to the Revenue to revive the appeal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not taxable as per the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act." Mr. Chaitanya K. K., learned counsel for the respondent, has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this appeal in view of the Board Instruction No. 3 of 2011, dated February 9, 2011, whereunder the appeal by the Department should be one involving a minimum tax effect of Rs. 10,00,000. On the other hand, the ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I. T. A. Nos. 739-740 of 2006 in the case of CIT v. Glowtronics Ltd. The Division Bench of this court sitting at Dharwad Circuit Bench in a judgment rendered on October 3, 2012, in I. T. A. No. 5049 of 2010-since reported in CIT v. Smt. B. Sumangaladevi [2013] 352 ITR 143 (Karn) has taken a different view about the applicability of the Board circular to the pending cases and by distinguishing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal before the hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 27468 of 2012 and in many appeals coming up before this court involving like questions, this court has disposed of the appeals. However reserving liberty to the Revenue to revive the appeal in the event of success in their appeal against the judgment of this court rendered in Ranka and Ranka's case, this appeal may also be disposed of with like ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
