ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDROMEDA MARKETING P. LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8588/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 January 2016AY 2008-092 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 noted that the tax effect of the appeal was below the monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed based on this circular.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting disallowances related to Section 14A, business expenditure, and depreciation. The tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by a CBDT circular for filing appeals before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT given the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAYA & SHRI PAWAN SINGH

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Mutsaddi & Mr
For Respondent: Shri R.K. Sahu (AR), Shri S.K. Mutsaddi & Mr
Hearing: 23.11.2015Pronounced: 06.01.2016

O R D E R

PER PAWAN SINGH, JM:

1.

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-21 Mumbai on the grounds that (i) Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 7,71,573/-U/s 14A, and further allowing the business expenditure of Rs. 14,60,572/- and further allowing depreciation @ 60% instead of 15% in respect of routers, switches, and cable.

2.

The present appeal was heard by us on 23.11.2015, and was reserved for order, in the meantime the CBDT had issued a circular No.21/2015(F.No.142/2007- ITJ (Pt.) dated 10th December, 2015 restricting the monetary limit of revenue for filing appeal before various forum of law, wherein the monetary limit for about the tax effect for filing appeal before the ITAT must be below of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

3.

After going through the grounds taken by the revenue, we have noticed that in the present appeal the tax effect is less than the prescribed limit of Rupee Ten Lack and the same is covered by the ceiling of Tax effect, as provided in the notification mentioned above, hence the present appeal is dismissed.

4.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →