9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 913X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ni Bhandari, Adv. Mr. K. Paarivendhan, Adv. M/S. M. V. Kini & Associates, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.33 of 2014 by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the subsequent demand, the penalty amount was reduced to Rs. 6,00,000/(approximately) and therefore when the tax effect would be less than Rs. 20,00,000/, in view of the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 the appeal preferred by the Revenue before the High Court was not maintainable. 2.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has also made some submissions on merits on the jurisdict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the subsequent demand notice was for an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs (approximately) only and therefore in view of the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 the tax effect being lower than the permissible limit to prefer the appeal before the High Court and therefore the appeal before the High Court was not maintainable is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that what was assailed by the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appeal before the High Court at the instance of the Revenue challenging the order passed by the ITAT was not maintainable in view of CBDT circular dated 10.12.2015. 4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above there is no substance in the present appeal and the same deserves to be dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
