Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI
O R D E R PER JASON P. BOAZ, AM :
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the revenue against order dated 27.11.2013 passed by the CIT(A)-13, Mumbai for the assessment year 2003- 04, on the following grounds :- “
1. Grounds of Appeal : (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition made by the AO u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) in respect of TDS on rent paid to SEEPZ u/s. 194 of the I.T. Act, 1961. (ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition made by the AO in respect of payments made to Silverline Technologies Ltd. being fees for processional services as u/s. 194J(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or modify any ground which may be necessary at the time of the hearing of the case or thereafter.
2 M/s. Oracle Financial Services Software Ltd.
The order of the CIT(A) being erroneous be set aside and A.O’s order be restored.”
At the outset, it was brought to the notice of the bench by both parties, that the tax effect on these disputed issues is Rs. 4,78,625/- which is much below the monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs. As per the latest CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, dated 10th December, 2015, new guidelines of monetary limit for filing of appeals by the Department has been issued, whereby the tax effect for filing of appeal before the ITAT has been prescribed at Rs. 10 lakhs. In the said Circular, it has been specifically clarified that the said instruction will apply retrospectively to all the pending appeals. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable and is dismissed in limine.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27th January, 2016.