ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 16(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KANGA & COMPANY, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 999/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 September 2019AY 2014-153 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 dismissed the revenue's appeal, primarily on the grounds that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by previous High Court decisions in favor of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT against the order of the CIT(A). The assessee's representative argued that the tax effect was below the CBDT's monetary limit, making the appeal liable for dismissal. The revenue's representative conceded this point.

What were the issues?

Whether the revenue's appeal should be dismissed due to the tax effect being below the CBDT's monetary limit. Whether the issue was covered by previous judicial precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37,Section 253,Section 254(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (6 matters)

ITA No. 999/Mum/2018
ITA No. 9170/Bom/1992
ITA No. 1253/Mum/2014
ITA No. 193/Mum/2010
ITA No. 1042/Mum/2011
ITA No. 3510/Mum/2012

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

Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate with Shri Bharat D. Damodar (AR) Respondent by : Shri S. Michael Jerald (DR) Date of Hearing : 19/09/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 19/09/2019 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. 1. This appeal by revenue under section 253 of Income Tax Act is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, [CIT(A)], Mumbai dated 22.12.2017 for Assessment Year 2014-15.

2. At the outset of hearing, the ld. Authorized representative (AR) of the assessee submits that the tax effect involved in the present appeals is only of Rs. 24,17,869/- which is less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT in its Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The ld. AR further submits that even the ground of appeal raised by revenue is covered in favour of assessee by the order of Tribunal for A.Y. 1989-90 in dated 23.04.2007, A.Y. 1993-94 in ITA No. 1253/Mum/2014 dated 08.04.2007, A.Y. 2006-07 in ITA No. 193/Mum/2010 dated 08.04.2011, A.Y. 2007-08 in ITA No. 1042/Mum/2011 dated 18.06.2013, A.Y. 2008-09 in ITA No. 3510/Mum/2012 dated 14.06.2013 and A.Y. 2009-10 in ITA No.

ITA No. 999 Mum 2018-M/s Kanga & Company 6088/Mum/2012 dated 18.12.2013 and decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in A.Y. 2001-02, 2008-09 & 2009-10 dated 19.06.2009, 01.02.2016 & 0- 1.02.2017 in of 2009, ITA No. 2277 of 2013 & ITA No. 1422 of 2014 respectively. 3. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue after going through the grounds of appeal fairly submits that the tax effect involved in the present appeals is less than the monetary limit of tax effect fixed by CBDT circular.

4. Considering the submissions of both the ld. representatives of the parties, we find that tax effect involved in the present appeal is 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 is dismissed. Even on merit, we have seen that the ld. CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee followed the order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ITA No. 860 of 2009 in CIT vs. M/s Kanga & Company A.Y. 2001-

More judgments on Section 37

All 4,334 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →