ADDL CIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. RAYMOND LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2730/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 December 2021AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that both appeals suffered from low tax effect, as the disputed amounts were below the monetary limits specified by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09. The appeals concerned the Fair Market Value determined by the CIT(A) after loading the benefit of Central Air Conditioning Facility.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue should be dismissed due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI G. S. PANNU & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

Hearing: 15/12/2021Pronounced: 15/12/2021

आअसं.2730/मुं/2011(िन.व.2007-08) (A.Y.2007-08) आअसं.4447/मुं/2012(िन.व.2008-09) (A.Y.2008-09) सुनवाई क� ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 15/12/2021 घोषणा क� ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : 15/12/2021 आदेश/ ORDER These two appeals by the Revenue are directed against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the AY 2007-08 dated 27.01.2011 and for the AY 2008-09 dated 23.04.2012, respectively.

2.

Sh. Vijay Mehta appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that both the aforesaid appeals by the Revenue are liable to be dismissed on account of low tax effect in the light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR) pointed that in appeal for AY 2007-08, the Revenue has raised solitary ground assailing Fair Market Value determined by the CIT(A) after loading the benefit of Central Air Conditioning Facility. The disputed amount is Rs. 20,01,714/- against which the Revenue is in appeal. In AY 2008-09, the Revenue has raised identical ground as was raised in AY 2007-08 and the amount in dispute is Rs. 33,87,516/-. The tax effect involved in both these appeals is less than the monetary limit specified by the Board for filing of appeals before the Tribunal in the aforementioned Circular.

3.

Sh. Amol Kirtane representing the department fairly admitted that the tax effect involved in both these appeals is less than the threshold limit specified by the Board for filing of appeals before the Tribunal vide Circular No. 17/2019 (supra).

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →