DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAGNUM INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI
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 held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars. The Departmental Representative also did not press the appeal.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against an order of the CIT(A) that deleted a disallowance of expenditure. The assessee claimed deduction of expenditure related to real estate sales using the percentage completion method.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal is maintainable due to low tax effect as per CBDT circulars. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of expenditure claimed under the percentage completion method.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
[A]. This appeal has been filed by Revenue against the order dated 23.02.2017 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, New Delhi [in short, “Ld.CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment year 2011-12. In this appeal, the tax effect is less than the monetary limit fixed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (in short “CBDT”) in its Circular No.17/2009 dated 08.08.2019. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the disallowance of claim of deduction of expenditure of Rs. 1,26,92,623/- u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by ignoring a finding of facts recorded by the ITA No: - 2510/Del/2017
Assessing Officer (the AO) that the assessee had not recognized revenue earned by it from its customer on sale of real estate during year under consideration on the ground that it was following percentage completion method, accordingly, the assessee was not entitled claim deduction of expenditure of real estate business? 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the disallowance of claim of deduction of expenditure of Rs. 1,26,92,623/- u/s 37(1) of the Act by ignoring a fact that the assessee had not even disclosed basis of capitalizing a part of total expenditure and claiming deduction of another part of total expenditure under percentage completion method followed by the assessee?
Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the disallowance of claim of deduction of expenditure of Rs. 1,26,92,623/- u/s 37(1) of the Act by accepting additional evidence even when the assessee had not fulfilled the condition as laid down under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 (the Rule) and without affording opportunity of being heard to the Assessing Officer (the AO)?
[B]. At the outset, it was brought to the notice by learned counsel for the Assessee, at the time of hearing that tax effect in this appeal is below Rs. 50,00,000./-. Vide recent CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 read with earlier CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, minimum threshold limit of tax effect of filing of appeals by Revenue in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT", for short) has been enhanced to Rs. 50,00,000/-. In a subsequent clarification issued by CBDT vide F.No. 279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ, dated 20/08/2019, it has been clarified by CBDT that the aforesaid revised monetary limit is also applicable to all pending appeals in ITAT. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, we are of the view that this appeal filed by Revenue is not maintainable. The learned Departmental Representative also did not press the appeal.
ITA No: - 2510/Del/2017 Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed being not pressed, and also not maintainable, having regard to aforesaid CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 read with aforesaid CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 in the light of aforesaid clarification dated 20/08/2019.
[C]. Before leaving, we clarify that Revenue will be at liberty to approach Income Tax Appellate Tribunal U/s 254(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking recall of this order and, for restoration of the appeal if it is found that this appeal of Revenue is not covered by aforesaid CBDT Circulars dated 08.08.2019 and 11.07.2018.
[D]. In the result, the appeal by Revenue is dismissed. Our decision was orally pronounced in the Open Court after conclusion of hearing on the date of hearing. Now, this written order is pronounced in Open Court on 01.10.2019.
More judgments on Section 37(1)
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Smit Navnitlal Soni, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs ITO Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad, GujaratITA 1434/AHD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, AhmednagarITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Digjam Limited, Jamnagar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 349/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 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
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026