DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PERIWINKLE FASHION P. LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8288/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 January 2016AY 2007-084 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. This circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect of Rs. 10 lakhs or less should not be filed or should be withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting a disallowance made under Section 14A. The assessee pointed out that the tax effect was below Rs. 10 lakhs.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable given the low tax effect, in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi

आदेश / O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, A. M: This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dated 29.09.2011 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai (hereinafter called as the CIT(A) ) for assessment year 2007-08. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:

1.

1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.20,13,744/- u/s.14A

of the Act r.w.r 8D without appreciating that in the case of M/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs DCIT(328 ITR 81) (Supra, their Lordhsip had upheld the contentions of the Union of India that Rule8D is reasonable in its nature.”

2.

At the outset the ld. AR of the assessee pointed out that the tax effect in this appeal is below Rs.10.00 lakhs and further submitted that in view of the CBDT Circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 brought out by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the appeal was not maintainable and be dismissed. The ld. DR also agreed to the submission of the ld. AR.

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

We find from the records before us that the tax involved in the disputed issue is below Rs.10 Lacs and therefore, in view of the circular no 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 no appeals should be filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal which has tax effect of Rs. 10.00 lacs or less and this circular is also applicable retrospectively to all pending appeals.

The relevant extract the said CBDT Circular (Supra) is as under:- “This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed.”

4.

Considering the above, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is therefore dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29th January, 2016 Sd/- Sd/- (Amit Shukla) (Rajesh Kumar) �या�यक सद�य / Judicial Member लेखा सद�य / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated :29.01.2016 Ps. Ashwini आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT - concerned 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard File

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →