TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to file appeals to the High Court from the order of the Tribunal when the tax effect is less than ₹ 10 lakhs. This Court in CIT vs. Vijaya V. Kavekar [2013 (2) TMI 451 - Bombay High Court] dismissed the appeal having tax effect of less than ₹ 10 lakhs in terms of Instruction No.3 of 2011. This on the ground that the instructions of CBDT in terms of Section 268A of the Act will ever a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P. C. This Notice of Motion has been taken out by the Applicant for condoning the delay of 1178 days in filing the appeal. 2. The Notice of Motion indicate that the delay is of 740 days. Assessing Officer has filed an affidavit dated 3.8.2015 wherein he has indicated that the delay is 1178 days in filing the appeal. The reason for the delay was that the appellant has filed an appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D of ₹ 4,42,000/- even after the establishment of the fact that assessee has violated provisions of section 269SS? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271D of ₹ 4,42,000/- even when it was established that this amount was credited to the books of accounts of assessee in violation of section 269SS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on No.5 of 2014 and in line with its earlier Instruction No.3 of 2011 directing the Revenue not to file appeals to the High Court from the order of the Tribunal when the tax effect is less than ₹ 10 lakhs. This Court in CIT vs. Vijaya V. Kavekar 350 ITR 237, dismissed the appeal having tax effect of less than ₹ 10 lakhs in terms of Instruction No.3 of 2011. This on the ground that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
