DCIT 12(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BILLETS ELECTRO WEREKE LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 549/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 September 2016AY 2008-093 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 held that due to the low tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed two appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders deleting additions made under Section 69C for non-genuine transactions and treating hedging loss as business loss. The tax effect in both appeals was below Rs. 10 lakhs.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeals were maintainable given the low tax effect, and secondary issues concerned the genuineness of transactions and the classification of hedging loss.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 133(6),Section 43(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI RAVISH SOOD

For Appellant: DR प्रत्मथी की ओय से/
Hearing: 06.09.2016Pronounced: 06.09.2016

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 06.09.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 06.09.2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: There are two appeals under consideration pertaining to assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. Both these appeals are filed by the Revenue against the orders of the CIT (A)-19, Mumbai commonly dated 13.11.2014. Considering the low tax effect involved in these appeals, they are clubbed, heard combinedly and disposed off in this consolidated order. “Grounds raised in appeal read as under:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) was right in deleting the addition made u/s 69C of the Act to the tune of Rs. 19,17,638/- on account of non-genuine transactions made with three vendors viz M/s. Industrial Trading Co., M/s. United Traders & Manufacturers, and M/s. Nilesh Enterprises.

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in holding that the identities of the parties is established and the transaction is genuine ignoring the fact that the documents submitted in response to the notices u/.s 133(6) of the Act were neither duly signed nor was the company seal affixed on these documents by the above parties.

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the Ld CIT (A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee-company after ignoring the fact that these three vendors did

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →