ACIT 18(2), MUMBAI vs. AKBAR HASANALI PADAMSEE, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1796/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 July 2016AY 2007-083 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 based on a CBDT circular regarding appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs. The decision was based on the tax effect, not the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order concerning the determination of reasonable rent for properties. The assessee argued that the tax effect was below Rs. 10 lakhs.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the revenue is maintainable given the tax effect. The merits of the determination of reasonable rent were not adjudicated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 23(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA (ACOUNTANT MEMBER)

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh Bare
For Respondent: Shri Ishwar Rathi

O R D E R Per ASHWANI TANEJA, AM

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [hereinafter called CIT(A)] dt 11- 12-2012 for A.Y. 2007-08 on the following grounds:

“1 "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the reasonable rent was determined in view of the provisions of section 23(1)(a) of the Act.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not considering the decision of the Hon. ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Chem Mech Pvt. Ltd [83 lTD 4271 relied upon by the AO for determining the ALV of the property.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the property at Phiroja Court, Juhu and Neelkanth, Thane have been used by the assessee for his professional work which is based on assumption.”

2.

During the course of hearing, Ld. counsel of the assessee stated that tax effect in this case is less than Rs.10 lakhṣ. The Ld. DR fairly agreed with the argument of the Ld. Counsel.

3.

It is noted that the CBDT issued a circular dt 10-12-2015 bearing No.21 of 2015 wherein it was provided that revenue should refrain from filing appeals in cases where tax effect is less than Rs.10 lakhs. Thus, we find that the appeal of the revenue is not maintainable. However, our order has no bearing on the merits of the case.

4.

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on this _27th ___ day of July, 2016.

More judgments on Section 23(1)(a)

All 272 judgments and leading authorities on Section 23(1)(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →