ITO 13(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. TAYABI TAGS, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1495/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 February 2016AY 2009-102 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 Department's appeal as not maintainable. This was based on the CBDT circular which applies retrospectively to pending appeals and sets a monetary limit for appeals.

What were the facts?

The Department appealed the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order deleting an addition made for foreign travel expenses. Both parties agreed that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the monetary limit set by the CBDT for appeals.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the Department's appeal was maintainable before the Tribunal given the tax effect and the applicability of the CBDT circular.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas Mehendale
For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Shri Vishwas Mehendale

Instant appeal of the Department is directed against the order dated 5th Nov 2013, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)– 24, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2009–10. Sole dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the direction of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of foreign travel expenses amounting to ` 12,56,119.

2 M/s. Tayabi Tags

2.

At the very outset, both the parties agreed before us that the tax effect pertaining to the amount disputed by the Department is less than the monetory limit of ` 10 lakh fixed by the CBDT in Circular no.21 of 2015 dated 10th December 2015, in relation to appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions of the parties and also finding that the CBDT circular under reference applies retrospectively, even to pending appeals, we dismiss the appeal of the Department as not maintainable.

3.

In the result, appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29.02.2016

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →