DCIT CEN CIR 1(2), MUMBAI vs. AISHWARYA RAI BACHHAN, 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 held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as it fell below the enhanced monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The appeal was dismissed on this technical ground.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer's grievance was that the CIT(A) ignored the auditor's qualifying remark in Form 3CD regarding disallowance under Section 14A.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal given the low tax effect in light of recent CBDT circulars.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI‘A’ BENCH, MUMBAI
By way of these appeals, the Assessing Officer has challenged the correctness of the order dated 04th December, 2017 passed by the learned CIT(A)-47, Mumbai for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15.
Grievances raised by the Assessing Officer are as follows: & 1539/Mum/18 Assessment years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page 2 of 4 'Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,03,61,3297- made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the Auditor's report in form 3CD clearly shows qualifying remark of the Auditor for such disallowance which in itself is a cause for the Assessing Officer's dissatisfaction as the disallowance quantified u/s. 14A of the Income tax Act, 1961 by the Auditor is not incorporated by the Assessee in her computation of income and further amount quantified by the Auditors is not in consonance with the provisions with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962."
When these appeals were called out for hearing, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the present appeal of the Revenue needs to be dismissed on account of low tax effect in view of the recent CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 whereby the monetary limits for filing the appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal was enhanced from Rs.20 lakhs to Rs.50 lakhs. This instruction is applicable to the pending cases also. Therefore, the present appeal of the Revenue is liable to be dismissed as non-maintainable as held by this Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Dinesh Madhavlal Patel in for AY 1998-99 vide a consolidated order dated 14.08.2019.
The learned Departmental Representative fairly admitted that the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than the limit prescribed by the aforesaid CBDT Circular.
We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of applicable legal position. As learned counsel rightly contends, this appeal of the Revenue is no longer maintainable in view of the recent CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019. The mandatory limit for cases in which Revenue can challenge the relief granted by the CIT(A) now stands enhanced & 1539/Mum/18 Assessment years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page 3 of 4 to Rs.50 lakhs. This concession granted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) is retrospective in effect inasmuch as it applies to all pending appeals as well. In view of the above position, the appeal of the Revenue is no longer maintainable and must be dismissed as such.
It is, however, made clear that on re-verification at the end of the Assessing Officer it comes out that the tax effect of more than Rs.50 lakhs is being involved in the appeal or the appeal falls within the exemption clause of the Circular, then the Revenue will be at liberty to file Miscellaneous Application to recall the Tribunal order. The application should be filed within time limit prescribed in the Act.
In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed due to low tax effect. Pronounced in the open court today on the 22nd October, 2019.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026