TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d limit as per para 5 of above instructions, or that this is a case, where, in the case of revenue, where constitutional validity of the provision of the Act or I.T. Rules 1962 are under challenge,or that Board’s order, Notification, Instruction or Circular has been held to be illegal or ultra vires, or that Revenue Audit Objection in the case has been accepted by the Department and the same is under challenge. The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue is not disputing the fact that the tax effect in the present case is less than ₹ 4 Lakhs and that the assessee's case does not fall within the exceptions specified in Instruction No.1979, dated 27.3.2000. Thus appeals are dismissed as not maintainable. - Decided against revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law, referred supra, we are not inclined to entertain these appeals in view of the preliminary objection made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the monetary limit to prefer an appeal is pegged at ₹ 4,00,000/- by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Instruction No.2 of 2005, dated 24.10.2005 read with Instruction No.5 of 2007, dated 16.7.2007. 3. In the case on hand, the tax liability pertains to the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of cost of renovation and construction of nurses quarters. The preliminary objection of the assessee and the tax liability under the above heads is as under: Preliminary objection on maintainability of Department's Tax Case Appeal: Instruction No.2 of 2005 date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here Revenue audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department. (ii) Where the Boards order, notification, instruction or circular is the subject-matter of an adverse order. (iii) Where prosecution proceedings are contemplated against the assessee. (iv) Where the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act are under challenge. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue is not disputing the fact that the tax effect in the present case is less than ₹ 4 Lakhs and that the assessee's case does not fall within the exceptions specified in Instruction No.1979, dated 27.3.2000. 6. Considering the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the tax effect involved in the case on ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
