What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting a disallowance of a consent fee paid by the assessee. The disputed amount was Rs. 15,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT given the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals.

DCIT vs Subhkam Securities P.Ltd | ITAT Mumbai 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, C Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Premanand J

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh

Hearing: 19.01.2017Pronounced: 19.01.2017

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 13.03.2015 passed by the CIT(A)-9, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed under section 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2011-12 dated 07.02.2014 on the following grounds: - “

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on account of payment made as consent fee for violation of SEBI guidelines, as the consent fee paid by the as is nothing but in the nature of compounding of penalty to avoid suspension for infringement of law.

2. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.”

2. At the outset, it is noticed that the disputed issue is only for `15,00,000/- and the tax effect on this amount is below the monetary limit of `10 lakhs. As per the latest CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, dated 10th December, 2015, new guidelines of monetary limit for filing of appeals by M/s. Subhkam Securities P. Ltd. the Department has been issued, whereby the tax effect for filing of appeal before the ITAT has been prescribed at `10 lakhs. In the said circular, it has been specifically clarified that the said instruction will apply retrospectively to all the pending appeals. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable and is dismissed in limine. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th January, 2017. Sd/- Sd/- (Ram Lal Negi) (Jason P. Boaz) Judicial Member Accountant Member

DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SUBHKAM SECURITIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments