THE DCIT(OSD)CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LTD., AHMEDABAD
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal because the tax effect was below the threshold specified in CBDT Instruction No. 17 of 2019. The assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as it was rendered infructuous.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of depreciation on premium paid for leasehold land. The assessee argued the appeal should be dismissed due to low tax effect as per CBDT instructions.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed due to low tax effect as per CBDT instructions. Whether the assessee's cross-objection needs to be adjudicated after the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD - BENCH ‘B’
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of ld.CIT(A)- XIV, Ahmedabad dated 24.1.2014 passed for the assessment year 2004-05.
The Revenue is aggrieved by the action of the Id.CIT(A) in deleting addition made on account of disallowance of depreciation on premium paid in respect of leasehold land.
At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal of the Revenue is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the tax effect involved in the appeal is below Rs.50 lakhs, and therefore, by virtue of latest CBDT Instruction No.17 of 2019 dated 8.8.2019, vide which Department has been instructed not to file appeal before the Tribunal where tax effect is below Rs.50 lakhs. When we confronted the same to the 2 ld.DR, he did not dispute same and left to the Tribunal to pass appropriate order in the matter.
In view of the above, we are of the view that the present appeal of the Revenue falls within the purview of the CBDT Instruction cited (supra) and therefore, keeping in view the above CBDT circular and provisions of section 268A of the Income Tax Act, we are of the view that the present appeal of the Revenue deserves to be dismissed. It is dismissed.
However, it is observed that in case on re-verification at the end of the AO it can be demonstrated that the tax; effect is more, or Revenue's case falls within the ambit of exceptions provided in the Circular, then the Department will be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall of this order. Such application should be filed within the time period prescribed in the Act. In view of the above, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect.
As far as the CO of the assessee is concerned, the assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in rejecting its alternative contention. Since, we have dismissed appeal of the Revenue, therefore, there is no necessity to go into the alternative contention of the assessee, which has been decided against it. However, we observe that with the dismissal of the CO in the present year will not cause and prejudice for the assessee for taking this very alternative arguments in some other assessment year, if needs to be assigned. With the above observation, CO of the assessee stands dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect. CO of the assessee, both are dismissed due to low tax effect. Order pronounced in the Court on 15th October, 2019 at Ahmedabad.
More judgments on Section 268A
- Income Tax Officer, Ajmer vs Hemant Kumar Sharma, AjmerITA 1506/JPR/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Income Tax Officer, Indore vs Aashta Doshi, IndoreITA 789/IND/2025[2024-25]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Income Tax Officer Ward -1(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs Khushal Madhavlal Darji, AhmedabadITA 82/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mehsana vs Hemantkumar Faljibhai Chaudhary, MehsanaITA 475/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Dy. CIT-4(1), Indore vs Kiran Bajpai, IndoreITA 426/IND/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- The State Of Karnataka vs. M/S Itd Cemindia JvKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Aman Motors vs. The Commissioner CGST & Ors.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Imperial Marketing vs. Principal Commissioner Of CGST Delhi NorthDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Om.S.R. Construction, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Commissioner, Commerical Tax DepartmentJharkhand · 28 Oct 2026