DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. BHARATI S. KHANNA(THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE SHRI SHARAN P. KHANNA), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7164/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 October 2019AY 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 filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting disallowances under Section 14A and additions on account of Long Term Capital Gains. The assessee's representative pointed out that the tax effect was below the threshold specified by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable on grounds of low tax effect as per CBDT circulars. The appeal also involved issues related to disallowance under Section 14A and Long Term Capital Gains.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON’BLE & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLESmt Bharati S. Khanna

For Appellant: Shri R.V. Shah &, Ms. Malika Devendra
For Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Hearing: 16.10.2019Pronounced: 16.10.2019

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CIT(A)-8/IT-156/16-17 dated 04.09.2017 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

(A.Y: 2013-14) Smt Bharati S. Khanna 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal: - “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A] was right in deleting the disallowance of Rs.11,83,271/- made u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D without appreciating the fact that the amount of disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 has to be computed as per Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962 when the computation of the assessee was not found to be correct and as held in the order of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs.1,64,83,714/- on account of Long Term Capital Gains on sale of shares of the M/s Sushama Trading Pvt. Ltd. M/s Mahanadi Software Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Shami Realty Pvt. Ltd. along with flat/unit in the name of the company.

3. The appellant prays that for this and other reasons it is submitted that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.”

3.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that tax effect on the issues in the present appeal is ₹.37,61,276/- which is below ₹.50 Lacs and in view of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 in F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (Pt), the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable.

4.

Departmental Representative also agreed with the above submission of the Authorized Representative of the assessee.

5.

We have heard the submissions and perused the grounds of appeal in this appeal. We find that the tax effect in this appeal is less than ₹.50 Lakhs and therefore the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable

(A.Y: 2013-14) Smt Bharati S. Khanna on account of low tax effect in view of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. Hence this appeal is dismissed.

6.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on the 16th October, 2019.

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →