INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S UAS EMPLOYEES HOUSING BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1612/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 September 2018AY 2008-094 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 the low tax effect. The appeal was dismissed in limine.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. The additions made by the AO were under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Both parties agreed that the tax effect was below the CBDT's monetary limit for appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal given the tax effect is below the CBDT's prescribed monetary limit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(2)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENGALURU BENCH B, BENGALURU

Before: SHRI. A. K. GARODIA

For Appellant: Shri. P. R. Suresh, CA
For Respondent: Smt. Sreenandini Das, JCIT

PER LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

1.

The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT (A), Bengaluru -6, dt.22.03.2017, for the assessment year 29.04.2016, on the following grounds of appeal ITA.1612/Bang/2017 Page - 2

2. From the assessment order it is clear that the additions were made u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act, to the extent of Rs.36,84,692/-, and the tax determined on this addition was Rs.19,88,427/-.

ITA.1612/Bang/2017 Page - 3

3.

The Ld. DR has submitted that the case is required to be sent back to the assessee as both the CIT (A) has not verified whether the interest earned by the assessee by depositing the amount in a bank was from the investment made by the assessee out of its own fund or from borrowed fund / liability. 04. At the outset, both the Id. AR for the assessee and DR for the Revenue submitted before the Bench that/the tax effect pertaining to the amount disputed by the Revenue is less than the monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakh fixed by the CBDT in Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11/07/2018, which is in supersession of its Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10/12/2015, in relation to filing of appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions of both the Id. Authorized Representative for the assessee and the Departmental Representative for the Revenue and also the fact that the CBDT Circular under reference applies retrospectively even to pending appeals, we hold that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limine.

More judgments on Section 80P(2)(d)

All 2,440 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P(2)(d) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →