Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Revenue's appeal was liable to be entertained where the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed in the CBIC circular.
Issue (i): Whether the Revenue's appeal was liable to be entertained where the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed in the CBIC circular.
Analysis: The tax effect in the appeal was Rs. 23.96 lakhs, which was below the threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs fixed by the CBIC circular dated 11 July 2018 for pursuing such appeals. The case did not fall within any stated exception to that circular, and the appeal was covered by the policy against filing or pursuing low tax effect matters.
Conclusion: The appeal was not entertainable and was dismissed on the ground of low tax effect.
Final Conclusion: The Revenue could not pursue the appeal because the monetary limit barred its maintainability, leaving the substantial questions of law open.