ACIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. SPECTRAL SERVICES CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., GURGAON
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The Tribunal noted that the appeal should have been withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, as it did not fall under any exceptions. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
What were the facts?
The Department appealed the deletion of an addition of Rs. 51,31,257/- made on account of disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) for payments to non-residents. The tax effect was below the monetary limit for appeals.
What were the issues?
Whether the Department's appeal, with a tax effect below the monetary limit, should be dismissed in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and its exceptions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. This appeal is preferred by the department against the order dated 9.8.2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi for assessment year 2011-12 and challenges the action of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 51,31,257/- on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) in respect of payment made to non-residents. Admittedly, the tax effect in the appeal is below the monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs.
ITA 5843/DEL/2016 Assessment year 2011-12 2.1 In terms of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018 read with Section 268 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, this appeal by the Revenue should have been withdrawn or should not have been pressed by the Revenue.
2.2 We also note that vide CBDT’s Instructions dated 20.08.2018 bearing F.No. 279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt), there has been an amendment to para 10 of the Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 wherein the said para 10 has been amended as under:-
“10. Adverse judgments relating to the following issues should be contested on merits notwithstanding that the tax effect entailed is less than the monetary limits specified in para 3 above or there is no tax effect.
(a) Where the Constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule is under challenge, or (b) Where Board’s order, Notification, Instruction or Circular has been held to be illegal or ultra vires, or (c) Where Revenue Audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department, or (d) Where addition relates to undisclosed foreign income/undisclosed foreign assets (including financial assets)/undisclosed foreign bank account.
(e) Where addition is based on information received from external sources in the nature of law enforcement agencies such as CBI/ ED/DRI/SFIO/Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI).
ITA 5843/DEL/2016 Assessment year 2011-12
(f) Cases where prosecution has been filed by the Department and is pending in the Court. ”
2.3 However, after going through the records before us, we are of the opinion that apparently the Department’s Appeal is not covered by any of the aforesaid exceptions as enumerated in the aforesaid amendment to the Instructions and, therefore, delaying the disposal of the appeal by waiting for the Report from the Field Officers will not be in true spirit of the Circular. Accordingly, we deem it fit to treat this Appeal as dismissed with the liberty to the Department to seek recall of this order by filing a Misc.
Application before us in case the Department’s Appeal falls in any of the above exceptions. Accordingly, in view of the CBDT’s Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11.7.2018, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in limine.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd JULY, 2019.
More judgments on Section 40(a)(i)
- 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
- DDIT(It)- 1(1), Mumbai vs M/S. American Express Bank Ltd., MumbaiITA 5667/MUM/2004[2000-01]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-01
- Eurofins Peenya Resources Private Limited… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1116/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Azure Green Tech Private Limited, Delhi vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 6199/DEL/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Azure Green Tech Private Limited, Delhi vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 6198/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026