DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK vs. PURVI BHARAT COAL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, CUTTACK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 31/CTK/2018Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 September 2018AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order granting depreciation on plant and machinery. The assessee had declared a loss, which was assessed at a lower loss after disallowing depreciation. The CIT(A) deleted this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in granting depreciation. The primary reason for dismissal was the tax effect being below the CBDT's monetary limit for appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Hearing: 25/09Pronounced: 25/09

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 31/CTK/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-2013

DCIT, Circle 2(1), Cuttack Vs. M/s. Purvi Bharat Coal Products Pvt. Ltd., OSL Tower, Link Road, Cuttack PAN/GIR No.AADCP 1801 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : R.K.Jhunjhunwalla, AR Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Date of Hearing : 25/09/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25/09/ 2018

O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of

the CIT(A), Cuttack dated 27.10.2017 for the assessment year

2012-2013.

2.

The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the CIT(A) was

not justified in granting depreciation of Rs.46,58,498/- on the

plant and machinery installed at the coke oven plant of the

assessee company in contravention of section 32 of the Act.

3.

The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

vide his letter dated 6.9.2018 has sought permission of the Bench

P a g e 1 | 3

ITA No. 31/CT K/ 2018 Asse ssment Year : 20 12- 201 3

to withdraw the appeal filed before the Tribunal as the tax effect

is below the limit of Rs.20 lakhs prescribed by the CBDT Circular

No.3 of 2018 dated 11.7.2018 for filing appeal before the

Tribunal. The said letter reads as under:

Sub : Withdrawal of appeal in case of M/s. Purvi Bharat Coal Products Private Ltd., PAN-AADCP1801G for the A.Y.2012-13 - Matter regarding.

Ref: Letter NO.JCIT(ITAT)/CTK/2018-19/29 DT.30.08.2018.

Kindly refer to the above. In this case, return of Income was filed by the assessee on 28.09.2012 declaring loss at Rs.94,14,102/-. However, on scrutiny assessment u/s.143(3), the loss was assessed at Rs.47,55,604/- as a result of disallowance of claim of depreciation for Rs.46,58,498/-. Subsequently, the addition was deleted by the Ld.CIT (A) vide his order dt.27.10.2017. The potential tax effect in this case works out to Rs. 13,97,549/-, which is below the monetary limit as per the Circular No.3/2018, dt. 11.07.2018. The case is not covered under the exceptional clause -10 of the above Circular. The decision of withdrawal of appeal filed before the Hon'ble ITAT may kindly be considered accordingly. Yours faithfully, Sd/ (Sanjeeb Roy) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Cuttack.”

4.

Hence, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue as withdrawn.

Order pronounced on 25 /09/2018. Sd/- sd/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (N.S Saini) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 25/09/2018

P a g e 2 | 3

ITA No. 31/CT K/ 2018 Asse ssment Year : 20 12- 201 3

B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : DCIT, Circle 2(1), Cuttack

2.

The respondent: M/s. Purvi Bharat Coal Products Pvt. Ltd., OSL Tower, Link Road, Cuttack 3. The CIT(A) Cuttack 4. Pr.CIT- Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack By order 6. Guard file. //True Copy// Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Cuttack

P a g e 3 | 3

More judgments on Section 32

All 2,762 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →