ACIT, COIMBATORE vs. M.RAMASAMI, SALEM
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 appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the CBDT's circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals. The circular was clarified to apply retrospectively.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed appeals against the CIT(A) orders concerning disallowance of expenditure related to dividend income. The appeals were filed with a delay of three days.
What were the issues?
The maintainability of the Revenue's appeals before the Tribunal based on the revised monetary limits prescribed by CBDT circulars.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These appeals are filed by the Revenue against the Orders dated 21.10.2016 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, in to 61/15-16 for the AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012- 2013. to 173/Mds/2017 :-2-:
2.0 Delay:
The Revenue filed appeals with delay of three days and the Ld.AO filed the condonation petition explaining the reason for delay. We heard both the parties and condoned the delay.
3.0 The assessee made investments in shares and securities and received the dividend income which was claimed as exemption. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure relating to the dividend income u/s.14A r/w Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules for the AYs as per the details given below:
Disallowance Case No. AY made (in Rs.) 2009-10 1,33,485 ITA No.171/Mds/2017 2010-11 2,19,038 ITA No.172/Mds/2017 2011-12 3,28,487 ITA No.173/Mds/2017 2012-13 4,53,616
On hearing from the Ld.Departmental Representative, we find that the tax effect in the above appeals are less than Rs.10 lakhs. The CBDT in Circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 increased the monetary limit for filing appeal before this Tribunal from Rs.4 lakhs to Rs.10 lakhs. The CBDT further clarified that the Instruction dated 10.12.2015 will apply retrospectively to all the pending appeals before this Tribunal. The CBDT has also instructed its officers to withdraw the appeals pending before this Tribunal. In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Circular issued by the CBDT on 10.12.2015 is binding on the to 173/Mds/2017 :-3-: Department. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
4.0 In the result, the above four appeals of the Revenue for the AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28th April, 2017, at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026