DCIT CEN CIR 4(2) CEN RG 4, MUMBAI vs. SUNIL P MANTRI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4865/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 December 2017AY 2011-123 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. This was based on the agreement between both parties that the tax effect of the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing interest expense on a self-occupied property. The assessee argued that the tax effect was below the threshold specified by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT guidelines.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 23

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Poojan Mehta
For Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Hearing: 06/12/2017Pronounced: 06/12/2017

PER C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 52, Mumbai in appeal No. CIT(A)-52/DC/AC-CC-4(3)/54/2014-15, dated 11.06.2015 for the Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal. 1) “The ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the interest expense of Rs.13,94,236/- instead of Rs.1,50,000/-, since the property for which the deduction of interest has been allowed is a self-occupied

(A.Y:2011-12) Shri Sunil P Mantri house property which has been deemed to be let out within the meaning of provisions of Sec. 23 of the I.T Act, 1961.” 2) “The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and/or to alter any of the ground of appeal, if need be.” 3) “The appellant, therefore, prays that on the grounds stated above, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) – 52, Mumbai, may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.”

3.

At the time of hearing, Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that tax effect on the issue in the present appeal is below ₹ 10 Lac and in view of the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10/12/2015, the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable. A statement showing calculation of tax effect is also furnished according to which the tax effect comes to ₹.4,30,820/-.

4.

Departmental Representative also agreed with the above submission of the Authorized Representative of the assessee. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue on account of low tax effect.

5.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order Pronounced in the Court at the close of the hearing on Wednesday, the 06th day of December, 2017.

More judgments on Section 23

All 564 judgments and leading authorities on Section 23 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →