ACIT CEN CIR 32, MUMBAI vs. ACKRUTI CITY LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1704/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 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 dismissed the appeal in limine. This was based on the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, as the tax effect of the appeal was below Rs. 10 Lakhs and did not fall under any exceptions.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order of the CIT(A) concerning assessment year 2010-11. The appeal raised issues regarding deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) and the treatment of debenture redemption reserve for MAT computation.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal due to low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. The substantive issues of deemed dividend and MAT computation were not adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(22)(e),Section 115JB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Ms. Arju Garodia
For Respondent: Shri. Govind Jhaveri
Hearing: 04/05/2016Pronounced: 04/05/2016

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against order dated 30/12/2013 passed by Ld CIT(A)-41, Mumbai for the assessment year 2010-11.

2.

The revenue has challenged the impugned order on following effective grounds:- 1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act holding that the loan received by the assessee from its 100% subsidiary is not in the manner of deemed dividend though the total accumulated profit of the subsidiary during the current year is Rs. 18,90,324/-.”

2. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the debenture redemption reserve is not a ‘reserve’ within the meaning of Explanation 1(b) of section 115JB of the Act, 1961.”

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the tax effect in this case is below 10 Lakhs and as per the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, dated 10-12-2015, the present appeal is not maintainable. The Ld. Counsel also placed on record a calculation sheet, as per which the total tax effect on addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short ‘the Act.’) comes to Rs. 6,40,820/-.

4.

The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the ground no.2 pertains to computation of book profit, and the tax effect thereof is irrelevant because as per assessment order dated 05/03/2013 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the tax payable under the normal provisions of the Act is higher than the tax payable u/s 115JB of the Act.

5.

The Ld. DR fairly conceded 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 appeal in limine.

More judgments on Section 2(22)(e)

All 1,757 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(22)(e) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →