DCIT CIR 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. S.H. KELKAR & CO. P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1081/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 August 2019AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable. This was based on the CBDT's circular revising the monetary limit for appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 50 lacs, and the tax effect in this case being below that limit.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The appeal concerned disallowances related to commission paid to directors and legal/consultancy charges.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal due to the tax effect being below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Shivram (AR)
For Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya (DR), Shri Shivram (AR)
Hearing: 13/08/2019Pronounced: 21/08/2019

O R D E R

PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM

1.

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-58 (for short ‘the CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment year 2011-12, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) r.w.s 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’).

2.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals), the revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the following effective grounds:-

1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting disallowance of Rs. 66,50,000/- made under section 36(1)(ii) in respect of Commission paid to Managing Director and Working Director. Assessment Year: 2011-12

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the disallowance of legal and consultancy charges of Rs. 43,34,361/- without considering the fact that the these expenses are not allowable as these expenses are related to inter-se dispute between two factions of the directors of the company.”

More judgments on Section 36(1)(ii)

All 220 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →