ACIT 8(3) (OSD), MUMBAI vs. MAQUET MEDICALS INDIA (P) LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5144/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 August 2016AY 2005-063 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 the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 10 lacs. The appeal was dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of a disallowance related to provision for warranty. The assessee argued that the appeal should be dismissed due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal when the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.

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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR.

Hearing: 16.08.2016Pronounced: 26.08.2016

This appeal has been filed by Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai, dated 15th March, 2011 for A.Y. 2006-07 on 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 related to provision of warranty of Rs.17,56,077/- without appreciating the facts of the case.

A.Y. 07-08 [DCIT vs. M/s. Maquet Medicals India Pvt. Ltd.) Page 2

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in applying the ratio of the decision in the case of M/s. Rotork Controls India Ltd. Vs. CIT (314 ITR 62)(SC), even though the facts of the assessee’s case are distinguishable from the facts of the above cited case.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had failed to maintain systematic data in support of its claim for provision of warranty.”

2.

Before us, at the outset, ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the present appeal of the Revenue needs to be dismissed on account of low tax effect in view of the CBDT Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015. The ld. Departmental Representative fairly admitted that the tax effect is less than the limit prescribed by the aforesaid CBDT Circular.

2.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusing the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue, we prima-facie find that the tax effect in this appeal is below Rs.10 lacs. As per the announcement of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) dated 10.12.2015 (Circular No. 21 of 2015), no Department appeals are to be filed against relief given by ld. CIT(A) before the Income Tax Tribunal unless the tax effect, excluding interest exceeds Rs. 10 lacs and it further states that the instructions will apply retrospectively to the pending appeals. In the present case, since it is an undisputed fact that on the additions which are in dispute, the tax effect is less than Rs. 10 lacs and in the absence of any material on record by the Revenue to A.Y. 07-08 [DCIT vs. M/s. Maquet Medicals India Pvt. Ltd.) Page 3 demonstrate that the issue in the present appeal is covered by exemptions specified in clause (8) of the aforesaid CBDT Circular, we are of the view that the monetary limit prescribed by the instructions of the aforesaid CBDT Circular would be applicable to the present appeal of the Department and therefore the present appeal is not maintainable on account of low tax effect. However, in case there is any error in the computation of the tax effect involved or if for any reason, the aforesaid CBDT Circular is not applicable, it would be open to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal. In such circumstances, we dismiss the appeal of Revenue without expressing any opinion on merits of the case.

3.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Court on this the 26th day of August, 2016.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai: Dated 26/08/2016 True Copy S.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, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई ।

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →