ITO 24(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. NEETA K KENY, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8604/MUM/2010Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 June 2016AY 2006-073 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 as the tax effect was below the threshold specified by CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order concerning the valuation of land transferred. The dispute involved the valuation of two flats exchanged for the land.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the revenue's appeal based on the tax effect and CBDT circulars. The underlying dispute concerned the valuation of property exchanged.

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 BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Smt. Vinita Menon
Hearing: 21/06/2016Pronounced: 21/06/2016

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against order dated 11/10/2010 passed by the Ld CIT(Appeals)-34, Mumbai for the assessment year 2006-07.

2.

The revenue has challenged the impugned order on following effective ground of appeal:-

1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to take the valve of land under transfer as Rs. 50,00,000/- without appreciating the fact that since the property has not come into existence on the date of transfer the best method to calculate the value of property being exchanged i.e.

two flats in this case is to determine the value of these flats as per stamp duty for flat prevailing at that time as held by the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Paresh K. Bharmani also supported by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. George Henderson & Co (66 ITR 622 SC).”

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Departmental Representative pointed out that the tax effect in this case is below Rs.10,00,000/- as the quantum in dispute is Rs. 27,24,000/- Hence, as per the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015, the present appeal is not maintainable.

4.

We find that the issue raised in appeal does not fall under any of the exceptions specified in para 8 of the Circular. Since, it has been specifically clarified in the Circular aforesaid that the instruction will apply retrospectively to all the pending appeals; the present appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable. We, therefore, dismiss the same in limine.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21th June, 2016

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →