DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. STUDY OVERSEAS GLOBAL (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 913/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 November 2018AY 2010-114 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 the Revenue's appeal was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order deleting additions made by the AO. The assessee contended that the tax effect of the appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal when the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT circulars.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘ G ’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA

ORDER

PER H.S. SIDHU, JM

1.

The Department has filed this Appeal against the Order dated 29.11.2013 of Ld. CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2010-11. The grounds raised

in the revenue’s appeal read as under:-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,21,89,908/- made by the AO on account of Management Fee.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,74,019/- which was disallowed by the AO treating the advertisement expense of Rs. 25,48,038/- as capital expenditure after allowing depreciation @ 50%.

3. The appellant craves to amend modify, alter, add or forego any ground of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.

2. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention towards a letter dated 20.10.2018 filed by her which is on record and submitted that the tax effect in respect of this appeal is lower than the monetary limit for tax effect. She also submitted that the additions raised in the grounds of appeal are wrongly mentioned by the Department. However, the additions and the tax effect involved in the present appeal is as under:-

S.No. Point of addition Amount of addition 1. Management fee paid to SOIPL 14,56,317/- 2. Advertisement expenditure 12,74,019/- 3. Total addition / disallowance 27,30,336/- 4. Rate of tax (including cess 3%) 30.9% Tax effect 8,43,674/-

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →