ADDL CIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI vs. DEUTSCHE EQUITIES INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Departmental Representative submitted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, and therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn. The Authorized Representative did not object.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2007-08. The grounds raised by the Revenue pertained to disallowance of depreciation on BSE membership card, transfer pricing adjustment, and applicability of Section 14A r.w.r 8D.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal is to be dismissed as infructuous due to low tax effect, rendering the substantive grounds withdrawn.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “I” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 28.03.2012 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 15, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2007-08, raising following grounds:
1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provisions of section 14A r.w.r 8D is CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provisions of section 14A r.w.r 8D is CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provisions of section 14A r.w.r 8D is not applicable for AY not applicable for AY 2007-08." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of depreciation on BSE CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of depreciation on BSE CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of depreciation on BSE Membership card". Membership card". 3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the Transfer Pricing adjustment in respect of Back d in deleting the Transfer Pricing adjustment in respect of Back d in deleting the Transfer Pricing adjustment in respect of Back Office Support Services." Office Support Services." 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law to be set aside and that of the of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law to be set aside and that of the of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law to be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be r Assessing Officer be restored.
At the outset, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) At the outset, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) At the outset, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that tax effect involved in the submitted that tax effect involved in the present appeal is below the appeal is below the threshold limit of Rs.60,00,000/ threshold limit of Rs.60,00,000/- prescribed by the Central Board prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No. 09/2024 New Delhi dated of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No. 09/2024 New of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No. 09/2024 New 17.09.2024 for filing appeal to the Income 17.09.2024 for filing appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal tax Appellate Tribunal and therefore, this appeal is deemed to be withdrawn. The Ld. and therefore, this appeal is deemed to be withdrawn. The Ld. and therefore, this appeal is deemed to be withdrawn. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) did not object. Authorized Representative (AR) did not object.
2.1 In view of the appeal withdrawn by the Revenue In view of the appeal withdrawn by the Revenue In view of the appeal withdrawn by the Revenue, same is dismissed as infructuous. d as infructuous.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous.
Order pronounced in the open Court on nounced in the open Court on 30/01/2025. /01/2025.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
