ACIT 11(1), MUMBAI vs. AKSHAY KHANNA, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1149/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 June 2016AY 2009-103 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 dismissed the appeal in limine because the tax effect was below the threshold specified in the CBDT Circular and did not fall under any exceptions. The circular was also applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s order deleting depreciation and additions made under Section 14A. The assessee argued that the tax effect was below the threshold for appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the revenue is maintainable given the tax effect and CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri. Morya Pratap
For Respondent: Shri. Sanjiv M.Shah
Hearing: 01/06/2016Pronounced: 01/06/2016

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against order dated 12/11/2012 passed by the Ld CIT(A)-3, Mumbai for the assessment year 2009-10.

2.

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

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting depreciation of Rs. 4,05,000/- disallowed by the A.O. and ignored the facts that the assessee has not given any evidences to prove the speed boat was put to use and wholly and exclusively used for business purpose during the impugned assessment year.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,05,000/- relying on fresh evidences produced before him in contravention of the provisions of Rule 46A.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made u/s 14A rule 8D amounting to Rs. 5,41,324/-.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the provisions of Section u/s 14A(3) wherein it is provided that section u/s 14A can be invoked even in cases where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to exempt income.

5. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(Appeals) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the tax effect in this case is below 10,00,000/- as the depreciation made u/s 14A rule 8D of the Act. Hence, as per the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015, the present appeal is not maintainable.

4.

The Ld. DR fairly admitted that the tax effect in department’s appeal is below 10 Lakhs, 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.

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →