TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....60-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 08.01.2004 passed in M.P.No.259/Mds/2003 against I.T.A.No.1969/ Mds/1995. For appellant : Mr.K.Subramaniam For respondent : Mr.B.Ravindran (JUDGMENT OF THE COURT WAS DELIVERED BY D.MURUGESAN,J.) The Tax Case appeal at the instance of the Revenue, was admitted on the following subs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion was sent. After discussion with the assessee's representative and scrutinising the details filed in the course of the hearing, the Assessing Officer determined the total taxable turnover as Rs.21,95,970/-. That order was carried on appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was ultimately, partly allowed directing the assessee to get total reduction of Rs.2,12,9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n No.177 dated 4.11.1987. Hence the appeal was maintainable and reliance placed upon by the Tribunal on a subsequent Instruction No.197 dated 27.3.2000, prescribing the minimum of Rs.1,00,000/- as tax effect for preferring appeal was not justified. However, miscellaneous application was dismissed on the ground that it was an arguable one. 3. This order passed in Miscellaneous A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court in C.W.T. v. S.ANNAMALAI [258 (2002) ITR, 675). Subsequent application was dismissed as not maintainable as it was an arguable point. In all probability, the Revenue should have questioned the order dated 14.5.2003 which it had failed and it had questioned the order passed in Miscellaneous Application which was dismissed on the ground that the issue was an arguable one and not on merit....