9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed Instruction of the CBDT No.3 dated 9.2.2011 wherein the CBDT has revised the filing limits for appeal filed before the Tribunal, High Court and Supreme Court - Revenue’s appeal is not maintainable in view of the Circular of the CBDT read with Section 268A of the Act – thus, the appeal filed by the Department against the order of the CIT(A) is contrary to the policy decision of the Department a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of NCR. It may be noted that village Arthala is actually the town of Narender Nagar falling between Delhi and Gaziabad. 2. whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 40,000/- made u/s 24 (b) being interest paid on loan which was not found to be explainable by assesee during AY 2007-08. 2. At the outset of hearing, it was pointed out by the learned AR for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of ITO vs. Shri Ashok G. Dhandhariai in ITA No.2460/Mum./2010, dated 28th February, 2011, for the Assessment Year 2005-06; (2) Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench `F New Delhi in the case of ITO vs. M/s. PRS Securities Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.4447/2010, dated 25.03.2011 for the Assessment Year 2001-02. (3) Judgment of High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Delhi Race Club Ltd. in ITA N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Income-tax-III v. M/s. P.S. Jain and Co. being No.179/1991 decided on 2nd August, 2010 has taken a view that such circular would also apply to pending cases. 4.1 In the present case admittedly the tax payable in respect of grounds of appeal by the Department is less than ₹ 3 lakhs and as per revised Instruction of the CBDT No.3 dated 9.2.2011 wherein the CBDT has revised the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ashok Kumar Manibhai Patel Co. (2009) 317 ITR 386 (MP) on the issue. 4.3 In view of the above, we hold that the appeal filed by the Department against the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), is contrary to the policy decision of the Department and as such the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed in limine. 5. In the result, appeal file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
