<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2019 (8) TMI 1127 - ITAT INDORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384938</link>
    <description>Departmental appeals before the ITAT were held not maintainable because the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular, as amended on 08.08.2019. The Tribunal followed coordinate bench reasoning that the enhanced limit applies to pending appeals as well as future ones, since the amendment continues the earlier litigation policy and merely raises the threshold for departmental litigation. As the appeals fell below the applicable limit, they were dismissed in limine and not examined on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=584919" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 1127 - ITAT INDORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384938</link>
      <description>Departmental appeals before the ITAT were held not maintainable because the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular, as amended on 08.08.2019. The Tribunal followed coordinate bench reasoning that the enhanced limit applies to pending appeals as well as future ones, since the amendment continues the earlier litigation policy and merely raises the threshold for departmental litigation. As the appeals fell below the applicable limit, they were dismissed in limine and not examined on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384938</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>