DCIT-24(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, MUMBAI vs. AKRUTI JAY CHANDAN JOINT VENTURE, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
For ITA No. 4188/Mum/2023, the appeal was dismissed as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 09 OF 2024. For ITA Nos. 4189 & 4091/Mum/2023, the appeals were dismissed as the appellant intended to avail DTVSV, rendering the appeals infructuous.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,72,24,800/- made on account of project management fees paid to Shri Jayesh D. Shah. The Revenue contended that the assessee failed to submit details called by the AO. For other appeals, the appellant desired to avail the benefits of DTVSV, making the Revenue's appeals infructuous.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeal is admissible based on the tax effect considering the monetary limits set by CBDT circulars. Whether the Revenue's appeals are infructuous due to the appellant's intention to avail DTVSV.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “A” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Smt. Beena Pillai (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,72,24,800/- on account of project management fees paid to Shri Jayesh D. Shah amounting to Rs. 1,72,24,800/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to submit the details called by the AO.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended fully or exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee. Nothing has been brought on record by the assessee showing that the above expenses have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee.
2 Akruti Jay Chandan Joint Venture
From the Form No. 36 filed by the Revenue, it is observed that the tax effect involved in this appeal is Rs. 58,54,710/-. As per the CBDT Circular, No. 09 OF 2024 dated 17.09.2024, the monetary limits to file an appeal by the Revenue before the ITAT were fixed at Rs. 60 lakhs. As the tax effect is less than Rs. 60 lakhs, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The Ld. DR has not objected to the same in view of the CBDT circular.
2. The Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
These appeals were filed by the Revenue and during the hearing before the Bench, the Ld. AR of the appellant has submitted that the appellant has desired to avail the benefits of DTVSV. In proof the same, the Ld. AR of the appellant has filed a copy of Form No. 1 dated 31.12.2024 issued by the Income Tax Department. As the appellant intends to avail DTVSV, the apepals of the Revenue become infructuous and dismissed. For any reason, if the VSV application was not accepted by the Department, the Revenue is at liberty to recall this order.
The Revenue’s appeals are infructuous and hence dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 29/01/2025.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
