DCIT - 13 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. NIHAAR EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5706/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 January 2020AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was covered by CBDT's low tax effect circular, which enhances the monetary limit for appeals. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The revenue is aggrieved by the deletion of a penalty of Rs. 27,208/- by the first appellate authority. The penalty was levied by the AO against estimated additions on alleged bogus purchases.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable given the low tax effect and the applicability of CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Mundra-Ld.AR
For Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik –Ld. DR

आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) DCIT-13(1)(1) M/s. Nihar Equipment Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Room No.218 बनाम/ 117 CD, Govt. Industrial Estate Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Kandivali West Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai- 400 067. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AABCN-9153-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee by : Shri Manoj Mundra-Ld.AR Revenue by : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik –Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 14/01/2020 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 14/01/2020 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. In the aforesaid appeal for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, the revenue is aggrieved by deletion of penalty of Rs.27,208/- by learned first appellate authority. The penalty under dispute was levied by Ld. AO vide penalty order dated 27/03/2017 against estimated additions @ 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →