ITO 15(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. INVENTURUS KNOWLEDGE SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 714/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2016AY 2010-113 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 agreed that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit. However, it was held that if the CIT(A)'s order is reversed by the High Court, the appeal could be restored.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the assessee for AY 2010-11. The assessee claimed that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular 21/2015, making the appeal not maintainable under Section 268A of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable given the tax effect below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SANJAY ARORA & SHRI PAWAN SINGH

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Tiwari (AR)
For Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav (DR), Shri S.C. Tiwari (AR)
Hearing: 12.05.2015

Revenue by : Shri Vishwas Jadhav (DR) Assessee by : Shri S.C. Tiwari (AR) Date of hearing : 12.05.2015 Date of Order : 19.05.2016

O R D E R

PER PAWAN SINGH, JM:

1.

The present appeal came up for hearing on 13/05/2016, ld. AR of the assessee during the hearing claimed that the tax effect in the present appeal is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, and the appeal is not maintainable u/s 268A of the Act. The Ld. AR was questioned during the hearing as to how the M/s Inventurus Knowledge Services P. Ltd.

tax impact would exceed Rs. 10 lacs in view of the set off of loss of Rs. 109.99 lacs for AY2009-10 against the current year’s impugned income of Rs. 114.66 lacs. This is as the same (loss) stands to be restored if the impugned income is allowed as tax exempt, i.e., as held by ld. CIT(A). He explained that this shall nevertheless not be of any consequence as the said loss is from the same establishment and, accordingly, bears the same character as income (for current year) against which it is set off. That is the said loss shall not form part of total income u/s 2(45) of the Act. The appeal of the Revenue is thus liable to be dismissed as not maintainable u/s 268A of the Act. We agree in-as-much as, as is well- settled, ‘income’ includes ‘loss’, with the factual position being not denied or objected to by the ld. DR.

2.

Further thereto, we have however not been informed by any of the parties, if the Revenue is in appeal before Hon’ble High Court for the immediately preceding year, the order by the Tribunal for which year (AY2010-11)has been adopted by the ld.CIT(A).We, therefore, without prejudice to the foregoing, may add that in the eventuality of the Tribunal’s order (supra) being reversed by the Hon’ble High Court, so that the impugned income forms part of the total income, the Revenue’s appeal before us shall become maintainable in view of the provision of clause-4 of the CBDT Circular 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 defining tax effect as including notional tax on the returned loss reduced. The Revenue shall in that case move the Tribunal for restoring it’s instant appeal, and the Tribunal obliged to restore the same for a decision on merits. Subject to reserving the right for restoring it’s appeal under M/s Inventurus Knowledge Services P. Ltd.

appropriate circumstances, we dismiss the Revenue’s appeal as not maintainable. We decide accordingly.

3.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 19th May, 2016.

More judgments on Section 268A

All 3,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →