ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. AJAY GUPTA, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6169/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 August 2018AY 2013-145 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. The decision was based on CBDT Circular No 3 of 2018, which states that appeals where the tax demand is less than Rs. 20 lacs should be dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which deleted an addition related to disallowance of investment u/s 54 and also deleted a disallowance on account of indexed cost of improvement. The Revenue's appeal was filed against the assessment year 2013-14.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition related to disallowance of investment u/s 54 and indexed cost of improvement. The primary reason for dismissal was the monetary limit set by a CBDT circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “A”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI RAJ PAL YADAV & SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA

For Appellant: CA &
For Respondent: Smt. Anchal Khandelwal, Sr. DR, CA &
Hearing: 23.08.2018

This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the Ld.

CIT(A)-17, New Delhi, dated 05.10.2016 pertaining to the A.Y. 2013-14. The grievances of the Revenue are as under:-

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not considering the AO’s remarks given in remand report while deleting the addition of Rs. 57,43,013/- out of addition of disallowance of investment u/s 54 of the Act.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,41,212/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of indexed cost of improvement.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in considering the additional submission of the assessee in spite of objection raised by the AO during remand proceedings.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not considering that the assessee does not cover under the board’s circular no. 672 dated 16/12/1993 as the assessee has not purchased the flat from and institutions. In fact, the assessee has purchased the flat from resale market from an individual. “

2.

As per the Tax Calculation Sheet, which read as under:-

TAX CALCULATION

1.

Gross Tax 18,96,139 2. Rebate 3. Surcharge 4. Education Cess 56,884 5. Tax Credit u/s 115JAA/115JD 6. Relief U/s 89(1)/U/s 90/ U/s 91 7. Net Tax 19,53,023 8. Interest U/s 234A 8a. Delay period 9. Interest u/s 234B 6,33,454 10. Interest u/s 234C 11. Gross Demand 25,86,477

TAXES PAYMENT DETAILS 1. TDS/TCS 89,913 2. Advance Tax 0 3. Self Assessment Tax 3,380 4. Regular Assessment Tax 3,380

5.

Amount already refunded 0 6. Total Tax paid 93,293

DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX DETAILS 1. Additional Income Tax and Interest Payable on distributed profits 0 2. Additional Income Tax and Interest Paid 0 FINAL DETAILS 1. Total tax and Interest Payable 2493184 2. Interest nu/s 244A 0 3. Interest made u/s 244A recovered 4. Delay period attributable to Assessee 5. Interest u/s 234D 6. Interest u/s 220

3.

A perusal of the above shows that the Tax including Surcharge is less than Rs. 20 lacs and therefore, this appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, in the light of the CBDT Circular No 3 of 2018 dated 11/07/2018.

4.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24/8/2018

More judgments on Section 54

All 1,745 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →