INCOME TAX OFFICER 22(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. JAIRAM PRITHYANI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4818/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 September 2019AY 2011-123 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 low tax effect. The tax effect was below ₹50 Lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order concerning assessment year 2011-12. The key issue revolved around the applicability of Section 54F(4) and Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding investment in a new asset.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable given the low tax effect. The underlying issue was the allowability of exemption under Section 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F,Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON’BLE & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON’BLEShri Jairam Prithyani

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt
For Respondent: Shri Harkamal Sohi Sandhu
Hearing: 20.09.2019Pronounced: 20.09.2019

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)-34, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CIT(A)-34/ITO-19(1)(3)/IT-124/14-15 dated 12.04.2017 for the Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal: -

2 (A.Y: 2010-11) M/s. Uzuri Jewels Pvt. Ltd "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in applying the provisions of Section 54F(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961." 2. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing that the exemption claimed u/s. 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the investment in the new asset at Rs.2,40,00,000/-, holding that the appellant had acquired substantial domain over the new property by way of the letter of allotment and also made the substantial payment for the cost of the flat, despite the facts that the mere the allotment letter dated 19.07.2010 issued by the developer does not confer title until the agreement for sale under the provision of MOFA is registered, as per the recent decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rasiklal M Parikh Vs. ACIT (ITA. 314 of 2013 dt. 10.03.2017)." 3. "The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the AO be restored."

3.

At the time of hearing, Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that tax effect on the issue in the present appeal is ₹.46,19,964/- 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 on

6.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on the 20th September, 2019.

More judgments on Section 54F

All 2,628 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →