What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeal was below the threshold stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this procedural ground.

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2015-16. The primary issue was whether capital expenditure was wrongly treated as business expenditure and allowed for set-off.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal by the revenue should be dismissed due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular.

ITO vs Bellanca Builders & Develoers… | ITAT Delhi 2022

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. C. M. GARG & SH. N.K. BILLAIYA

Hearing: 30/11/2022Pronounced: 30/11/2022

This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-2, New Delhi dated 30.01.2019 pertaining to A.Y.2015- 16. 2. The grievance of the revenue read as under :-

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in considering the capital expenditure as business expenditure and allowing it for setoff against income from other sources. 2. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.

A perusal of the form No.36 show that the revenue itself has mentioned the tax effect relating to each ground of appeal

at Rs.22,49,145/-. This clearly shows that the appeal has to be dismissed in the light of the CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

4. Decision announced in the open court on 30.11.2022.

ITO WARD 4(3), NEW DELHI vs. BELLANCA BUILDERS & DEVELOERS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments