ACIT-CIR-8, NAGPUR vs. M/S PRASHANT CONSTRUCTION CO., NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 257/NAG/2014Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 June 2017AY 2007-083 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, as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an order by the CIT(A) regarding disallowance of transportation charges. The disputed amount had a tax effect below the monetary limit set by the CBDT for appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable given the tax effect is below the CBDT's monetary limit for appeals to the ITAT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI P.K. BANSAL & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe

PER AMARJIT SINGH, J.M.

Aforesaid appeal at the instance of the Revenue is directed

against the impugned order dated 3rd February 2014, passed by the

learned Commissioner (Appeals)–II, Nagpur, for the assessment year

2007–08 raising following grounds of appeal:–

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that transportation charges of ` 13,82,850 included purchase of material which did not attract TDS provision?

2.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer had segregated the transportation charges from total payments, including material charges and made disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) on transportation charged only amounting to ` 13,82,850 for which tax was not deducted at source by the assessee?”

2 M/s. Prashant Construction Company

2.

When the case was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf

of the respondent assessee before us. Therefore, we proceed to

dispose off the appeal after hearing the learned Departmental

Representative and on the basis of material on record.

3.

At the outset, the learned Departmental Representative

submitted before us that the tax effect pertaining to the amount

disputed by the Revenue is less than the monitary limit of ` 10 lakh

fixed by the CBDT in Circular no.21 of 2015 dated 10th December

2015, in relation to appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions of the learned

Departmental Representative and also finding 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 as such.

4.

In the result, appeal stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 20.06.2017

Sd/- Sd/- P.K. BANSAL AMARJIT SINGH VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER

NAGPUR, DATED: 20.06.2017

3 M/s. Prashant Construction Company

Copy of the order forwarded to:

(1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The CIT(A); (4) The CIT, Nagpur City concerned; (5) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; (6) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Nagpur

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →