What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 10 lacs as per the CBDT Circular. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable on account of low tax effect.

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing a provision for repairs. The respondent submitted 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 given the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.

ACIT vs Sterling & Wilson Property… | ITAT Mumbai 2016

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

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

Hearing: 18.08.2016Pronounced: 23.08.2016

अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/By Appellant : Shri Rajneesh K Arvind, D.R. ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Respondent : Shri M. M. Golvala, A.R. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 18.08.2016 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 23.08.2016 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M:

This appeal has been filed by Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai, dated 14.03.2014 for A.Y. 2001-02 on following ground:

A.Y. 01-02 [ACIT vs. Sterling & Wilson Property Developers Pvt. Ltd.) Page 2 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the provision for repairs without appreciating the fact that it has been created for un-ascertained liabilities.

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 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 A.Y. 01-02 [ACIT vs. Sterling & Wilson Property Developers Pvt. Ltd.) Page 3 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.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Court on this the 23rd day of August, 2016.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai: Dated 23/08/2016 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 ।

ASST CIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. STERLING & WILSON PROPERTY DEVELOPERS 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