ACIT 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BDCO CONSULTING P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5711/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 February 2017AY 2010-113 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 found that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in the CBDT circular and did not fall under any exceptions. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2010-11. The assessee's counsel pointed out that the tax effect was below Rs. 10,00,000, making the appeal not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H”, BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJENDRA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM

For Respondent: Shri. M.C.Omi Ningshen, Shri. Alpesh Dharod & Rahul Mehta
Hearing: 21/02/2017Pronounced: 21/02/2017

आदेश / O R D E R

PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM

1.

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against order dated 24/06/2016 passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-8, Mumbai for the assessment year 2010-11.

2.

The revenue has challenged the impugned order on following effective grounds:-

1.

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the amount of disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 has to be computed as per Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962 when the computation of the assessee was not found to be correct and as held in the order of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd .”

2. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Repair & Maintenance expenditure of Rs. 18,68,128/- without appreciating the fact that maintenance chares pertaining to the period prior to the date of taking possession cannot be said to have been incurred for the purposes of business and hence cannot be allowed as Revenue Expenditure particularly when cash crunch has not been justified.”

3. ““Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 64,085/- on account of unreconciled AIR transactions without appreciating that the assessee had failed to discharge its onus of showing that the amounts in question were not its income.

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the tax effect in this case is below Rs.10,00,000/- and as per the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015, the present appeal is not maintainable.

4.

The Ld. DR fairly admitted that the tax effect in department’s appeal is below Rs.10 Lakhs, We find that the issue raised in appeal does not fall under any of the exceptions specified in para 8 of the Circular. Since, it has been specifically clarified in the Circular aforesaid that the instruction will apply retrospectively to all the pending appeals; the present appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable. We, therefore, dismiss the same in limine.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21st February, 2017

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →