https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411317 The revenue's appeal was held not maintainable because the disputed addition was below the monetary limit prescribed for Tribunal appeals under CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The attempt to invoke the paragraph 10(e) exception failed, as the reassessment was based on information from DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai, which was not treated as information from an external source in the nature of a law enforcement agency. Accordingly, the low tax effect bar applied and the exception did not save the appeal. en-us Fri, 09 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Aug 2021 08:40:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411317 The revenue's appeal was held not maintainable because the disputed addition was below the monetary limit prescribed for Tribunal appeals under CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The attempt to invoke the paragraph 10(e) exception failed, as the reassessment was based on information from DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai, which was not treated as information from an external source in the nature of a law enforcement agency. Accordingly, the low tax effect bar applied and the exception did not save the appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 09 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411317