ADDL.C.I.T. RG.3(3), MUMBAI vs. STUP CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 5973/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 October 2016AY 2009-103 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine. This was based on the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, which stipulated that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- are not maintainable, and the tax effect in this case was Rs. 7,13,370/-.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s order which partly allowed the assessee's appeal against the assessment order. The appeal concerned disallowance of write-off of excess TDS deposit, addition for furniture cost, and classification of rental income.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015. The substantive issues related to TDS write-off, furniture cost, and income classification were not adjudicated.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT
129 Taxmann 70 · 2003 · SC
181 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri. Nitin Waghmode

For Respondent: Shri. S.H. Subramanian

Hearing: 17/10/2016Pronounced: 17/10/2016

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against order dated 07/05/2012 passed by the Ld CIT(Appeals)-7, Mumbai for the assessment year 2009-10, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against assessment order dated 30/11/2011 passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-3(3), Mumbai.

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

“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of claim of write-off of excess amount deposited with Income-Tax Department while depositing deduction on payments towards TDS account. (Rs. 10,74,176/-) without appreciating the fact that expenses claimed were gross of TDS and hence the loss claimed by the assesses would amount to double deduction to the assessee and also that the refund due on TDS return is to be claimed in the TDS return filed in the TDS section.”

2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,47,816/- being cost of furniture reduced from the Project fee Account without appreciating the fact that the project fee already includes payment towards office furniture as indicated by the relevant contract sheet.”

3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that receipt of Rs. 66,82,143/- from letting out the property be taxed under the head “Income from Business and Profession instead of “Income from House Property, as held by the Assessing Officer, without appreciating the fact that the intention of the assessee was to let out the property on rent as such the income there from should be assessed as “Income from House Property” as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd. (129 Taxman 70). ”

At the outset, the Ld. Authorised Representative 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.

The Ld. Departmental Representative fairly admitted that the tax effect in the present case is Rs.7,13,370/- as worked out by the respondent/assessee.

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →