ACIT CEN CIR 7, MUMBAI vs. SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was covered by the CBDT's Low Tax Effect circular, as the tax effect of the disputed amount was below Rs. 10 Lakhs. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against a relief granted by the CIT(A) to the assessee, a construction and property letting firm. The CIT(A) had deleted additions made by the AO regarding rental income and society maintenance charges.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable given the low tax effect as per CBDT circulars.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
The captioned appeal by Revenue for Assessment Year [AY] 2010-11 assails the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, [CIT(A)], Mumbai dated 30/07/2014 qua certain relief provided to the assessee.
Briefly stated, the assessee, being resident firm, was subjected to an assessment u/s 143(3) vide Assessing Officer [AO] order dated 22/03/2013 wherein the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs.5,20,40,580/- after certain adjustments/disallowances as against returned income of Rs.4,60,39,780/- filed by the assessee on 27/09/2010. The assessee was engaged in the business of construction and letting out of properties. The assessee earned certain rental income from an entity namely Reliance Webstore Private Limited for Rs.44,22,372/-, which was treated as ‘Income from other sources’. Further, the assessee suffered another addition of Rs.12,30,323/- paid towards certain society maintenance charges as the same, in the opinion of the Ld. AO, were claimed twice by the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before Ld. CIT(A) successfully vide order dated 30/07/2014 who deleted both the additions after considering the factual matrix of the case and various submissions made by the assessee. Further, Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to refer the matter of valuation of certain capital asset to the valuation officer. Aggrieved by the relief provided by Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us. 3. At the outset, it has been brought to our notice that the appeal, being revenue’s appeal, is covered by the Low Tax Effect circular issued by the CBDT. As per calculations, it is seen that the tax effect of amount in dispute in the appeal is below Rs.10 Lacs and hence the same is covered by latest CBDT Circular number 21 of 2015 dated 10/12/2015. As per this circular, new guidelines of monetary limit for filing of appeals by the Department has been issued, whereby the tax effect for filing of appeal before the ITAT has been prescribed at minimum of Rs. 10 lakhs. In the said Circular, it Shree Swami Samartha Developers Assessment Year : 2010-11 has been specifically clarified that the said instruction will apply retrospectively to all the pending appeals. The Ld. DR fairly conceded the position and could not point out any exceptions as given in the circular. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable and therefore, dismissed in limine. 4. In Nutshell, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25th April, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/- (Saktijit Dey) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 25.04.2017 Sr.PS:- Thirumalesh आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��थ� / The Respondent 2. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयु� / CIT – concerned 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, 5. Mumbai गाड� फाईल / Guard File 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026