ITO, WARD-2(1)(4), AHMEDABAD vs. MAHESHRAJ CHEMICALS PVT.LTD., AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3057/AHD/2015Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 December 2017AY 2008-092 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, noting that the tax effect was below the Rs. 10 lakh limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. This circular mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a low tax effect.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against a CIT(A) order that reversed an Assessing Officer's disallowance of Rs. 24,60,908/- under Section 36(1)(iii). This disallowance was made in a rectification order under Section 154.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed due to a low tax effect as per CBDT guidelines. The appeal concerns the disallowance of interest expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(iii),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH AHMEDABAD

Hearing: 28.12.2017Pronounced: 28.12.2017

PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2008-09 arises against the CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad’s order dated 10.08.2015 in case no. CIT(A)- 2/389/Wd.2(1)(4)/2014-15, reversing Assessing Officer’s action disallowing / adding an amount of Rs.24,60,908/- u/s.36(1)(iii) in rectification order dated 07.01.2015 involving proceedings u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

2.

We notice at the outset that the Revenue’s above sole substantive ground seeking to revive Section 36(1)(iii) interest disallowance of Rs.24,60,908/- involves

ITA No. 3057/Ahd/15 [ITO vs. Maheshraj Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.] A.Y. 2008-09

tax effect less than Rs.10lacs held to be the prescribed limit as per CBDT’s circular no. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 clearly envisaging therein that department’s pending appeals before the tribunal/high courts are to be withdrawn/not pressed as per the above stated circular. The same has been declared to be having retrospective effect in other words. We take into consideration the above stated Board’s circular and dismiss the instant appeal accordingly.

3.

The Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as having low tax effect. [Pronounced in the open Court on this the 28th day of December, 2017.] (MANISH BORAD) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 28/12/2017S.K.SINHA आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज"व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं"धत आयकर आयु"त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु"त- अपील / CIT (A)

5.

"वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड" फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।

More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)

All 3,665 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →