ITO 4(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. MAHAKOSH HOLDINGS P.LTD, MUMBAI
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 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?
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)
O R D E R
PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM
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’).
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
- The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Nk Proteins Pvt. LtdTAXAP/449/20254 Aug 2026
- Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs Motilal Oswal Financial Services Limited…ITA 7971/MUM/2025[2014]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2026
- Trinity Opportunity Fund I, Mauritius vs Assessing Officer-Int Tax Circle 4(1)(2)…ITA 3140/MUM/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2023-24
- ITO, Parel, Mumbai vs Kunal Govind Kataria, MumbaiITA 2125/MUM/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 May 2026AY 2010-11
- Kpa Apparels Private Limited, Delhi vs Income Tax Officer Ward 14(3), DelhiITA 2798/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 May 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026