DCIT CEN CIR 14, MUMBAI vs. SNEHA SURENDRA BARMECHA, GUJRAT
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the monetary limit prescribed by a CBDT circular for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
What were the facts?
The revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition made on account of foreign exchange loss by the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer had included an exchange loss of Rs. 11,78,225/- in the assessment. The CIT(A) deleted a significant portion of this loss.
What were the issues?
Whether the revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal given the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Not explicitly mentioned, but implied reference to appeal filing criteria based on tax effect.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM
O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, A. M: This is an appeal filed by the revenue challenging the order dated 9.10.2013 of ld.CIT(A)-37, Mumbai, for assessment year 2010-11 by which the revenue is challenging the deletion of addition made on account of loss on account of foreign exchange difference.
The facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 24.9.2010 declaring total income at Rs.2,09,793/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were issued to the assessee u/s 143(2) and 142(1) and served upon the assessee. The Assessing Officer after making 2 7445/Mum/2013 certain disallowances and addition framed the assessment u/s 143(3) at Rs.13,88,000/- which includes Rs.4863/- on account of speculation profit, exchange loss Rs.11,78,225/-profit, interest etc. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who in turn deleted the addition as prayed for by the assessee. Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us.
At the outset, we would like to point out that ld. CIT(A) has deleted the amount of Rs.11,19,149.03 on account of exchange loss in the assessment year under consideration and liberty to allow balance exchange loss of Rs.3,57,946/- is to be set off in the year when the inv. No.9/210 finally remitted. Therefore, the tax effect involved in this appeal remains below Rs.10 lacs. Even considering the addition made by the AO, the tax effect involved in this appeal is below Rs.10 lakhs. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, has issued a Circular bearing No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 prescribing new monetary limit of Rs.10.00 lakhs for preferring appeal against the orders passed by Ld CIT(A) before the Tribunal. According to the above said circular, the revenue is precluded from pursuing this appeal, as the said circular has retrospective effect and is applicable to the existing appeals also. Accordingly, we have heard the ld. DR and perused the material on record. We find that the quantum in dispute is Rs.11,19,149.03 and the tax effect involved therein is less than Rs.10 lakhs. Therefore, in view of the instruction issued by CBDT, we find that tax effect involved in this appeal is less than Rs.10 lakhs and therefore, this appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue being below Rs.10 lakhs. 4. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 9.6.2016. sd (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (RAJESH KUMAR) न्यधनयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखध सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER म ंबई MUMBAI; ददनधंक DATED : 9.6.2016 Sr.PS:SRL:
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026