DCIT CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AREVA INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1272/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 February 2020AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance of employees' contribution to Provident Fund. The tax effect of the relief granted was below Rs. 50 lacs.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable before the ITAT based on the monetary limit set by CBDT circulars. Whether the amended proviso to Section 43B is applicable to employees' contribution to PF.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald (DR)
Hearing: 24/02/2020Pronounced: 24/02/2020

O R D E R

PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM

1.

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -22 (for short ‘the CIT(A) Mumbai, for the assessment year 2013-14, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’).

2. The revenue has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) on the following effective grounds:- 1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Employees contribution to Provident Fund amounting to Rs. 1,46,38,214/-, which remained to be deposited within the due date without having regard to the provisions of Section 2(2)(x).

2.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that the amended proviso to Section 43B is applicable to Employees’ Contribution to PF also.” Assessment Year: 2013-14

More judgments on Section 43B

All 7,161 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →