TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 913
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i Bhandari, Adv. Mr. K. Paarivendhan, Adv. M/S. M. V. Kini & Associates, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.33 of 2014 by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the subsequent demand, the penalty amount was reduced to Rs. 6,00,000/(approximately) and therefore when the tax effect would be less than Rs. 20,00,000/, in view of the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 the appeal preferred by the Revenue before the High Court was not maintainable. 2.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has also made some submissions on merits on the jurisdicti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the subsequent demand notice was for an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs (approximately) only and therefore in view of the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 the tax effect being lower than the permissible limit to prefer the appeal before the High Court and therefore the appeal before the High Court was not maintainable is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that what was assailed by the Revenu....