INCOME TAX OFFICER, TIPTUR vs. MR. S.KUMAR, TIPTUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2211/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 November 2018AY 2008-092 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 agreed with the assessee's submission that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2008-09. The assessee's AR submitted that the tax effect was below Rs. 20 Lacs, making the appeal not maintainable as per CBDT instructions.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. The underlying grounds related to TDS on sub-contractor payments and estimation of net profit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA

For Appellant: Smt. Srinandini Das, Addl. CIT (DR)
For Respondent: Shri Shreehari Kutsa, CA
Hearing: 05.11.2018Pronounced: 05.11.2018

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

1.

This appeal is filed by the revenue and the same is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-7, Bangalore dated28.09.2016for Assessment Year 2008-09.

2.

The grounds raised

by the revenue are as under. “1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in law in holding that TDS u/s 194C was not required to be deducted on the payments made to the sub-contractors towards supply of labour"? 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in law in estimating the Net Profit at 10% of the Contract Receipts of the assessee, in absence of any bills in support of claim of purchases made by the assessee"?

4. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the CIT(A) in so far as it relates to the above grounds may be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored.

5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or delete any Page 2 of 2 of the grounds mentioned above.”

3.

At the very outset, it was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that in this appeal, the tax effect is below Rs. 20 Lacs and therefore, as per the recent CBDT instructions as per Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, this appeal of the revenue is not maintainable. Learned DR of the revenue had nothing to say.

4.

We have considered the submissions of the learned AR of the assessee and we also find that in this appeal, the tax effect is below Rs. 20 Lacs and therefore, as per the recent CBDT instructions as per Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, this appeal of the revenue is not maintainable. Accordingly, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed because of low tax effect.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 194C

All 2,696 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →