DCIT-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. DAIWA CAPITAL MARKETS INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 21/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 November 2019AY 2012-133 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 found that the tax effect in both appeals was below the Rs. 50 Lakhs limit set by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed two appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14. The assessee argued that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars, making the appeals not maintainable.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeals are maintainable given the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit by CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 253,Section 254(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 21/Mum/2018
ITA No. 22/Mum/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “K” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 21/Mum/2018 for Assessment Year: 2012-13 ITA No. 22/Mum/2018 for Assessment Year: 2013-14 JCIT (OSD)- 14(1)(2), M/s Daiwa Capital markets India Mumbai-400020. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. PAN : AACCD7178B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Anand Mohan CIT-DR with Sh Sunil A. Umap (Sr. DR) Respondent by : Shri Niraj Sheth (AR) Date of Hearing : 05/11/2019 Date of Pronouncement : 05/11/2019 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act

PER BENCH:

1.

These two appeal by revenue under section 253 of Income Tax Act are directed against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, [CIT(A)], Mumbai dated 12.10.2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13 & 2013-14 respectively.

2.

At the outset of hearing, the ld. Authorized representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the tax effect involved in the present appeals are less than the monetary limit of Rs. 50 Lakhs , as prescribed by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in its Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, therefore, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. The ld. AR for the assessee also furnished the working of the tax effect for both the years. For ITA No.21 & 22 Mum 2018- M/s Daiwa Capital markets India Pvt. Ltd. Assessment year 2012-13 the tax effect is only Rs. 21,91,328/- and for Assessment Year 2013-4 the tax effect is only Rs. 34,73,196/-. The working of tax effect is provided to the ld. DRs for the revenue.

3.

On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue after going through the grounds of appeal fairly submits that though the tax effect involved in the present appeals are less than the monetary limit of tax effect fixed by CBDT in a recent circular, however, the revenue may be given liberty to get the appeal revived in case at the later stage it is discovered that the tax effect is more than the monetary limit prescribed in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July 2018. 4. Considering the submissions of both the ld. representatives of the parties, we find that tax effect involved in the present appeals are less than the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- fixed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, therefore, the appeal of revenue are dismissed being not maintainable. However, the revenue is given liberty to get the appeals revived in case, if it is discovered that the tax effect involved in the appeals are more than the monetary limit as prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August 2019. 5. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 05/11/2019. (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Date: 05.11.2019 2

ITA No.21 & 22 Mum 2018- M/s Daiwa Capital markets India Pvt. Ltd. SK

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →