ITO 4(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. MAHAKOSH HOLDINGS P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3272/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 November 2019AY 2009-103 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 dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as not maintainable, acknowledging that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for appeals. Liberty was granted to file a miscellaneous application if exceptions applied.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2009-10. The assessee's counsel pointed out that the tax effect of the relief granted was below Rs. 50 lacs, making the appeal not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable given the tax effect and the CBDT's revised monetary limits for appeals to the ITAT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 73

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Poojan Mehta (AR)
For Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik (Sr. DR), Shri Poojan Mehta (AR)
Hearing: 14/11/2019Pronounced: 14/11/2019

O R D E R

PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM

1.

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 04.02.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8 (for short ‘the CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment year 2009-10, 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. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not treating loss of Rs. 63,63,773/- in delivery based trading as speculation loss applying provisions of explanation to section 73 of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not apportioning administrative expenses to the extent of Rs. 30,65,751/- treating the same as having been incurred towards speculation activity. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT (A) is contrary to law and Assessment Year: 2009-10 consequently merits to be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.”

More judgments on Section 73

All 521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 73 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →