What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the AO. This was based on the concession by the Department that the tax effect in the case was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular.

The Assessing Officer (AO) appealed against the CIT(A)'s order treating an expenditure as revenue. During the hearing, the assessee's representative stated the tax effect was below Rs. 3 lakhs, and the Departmental Representative conceded this point.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal due to low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars.

ITO vs Twincity Glass P. Ltd | ITAT Mumbai 2016

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ई’ खंडपीठ मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “E” BENCH सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा लेखा सद"य एवं सद"य एवं संसंसंसंजय गग" जय गग", "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य एवं सद"य एवं जय गग" जय गग" "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Sanjay Garg,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.7852/M/2011,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2007-08 Mumbai-400 020. Worli,Mumbai-400 018. PAN:AAACT 0221 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee by :Sh.Rahul Bairagra -AR राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh.B S N Raju -DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 10-11-2015 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 01.01.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 1961 की धारा 254 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश 1961 1961 254 254 Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद" राजे" के अनुसार PER RAJENDRA, AM- Challenging the order dt.20.09.2011 of the CIT(A)-18,Mumbai the Assessing Officer(AO)has filed following grounds of appeals: “1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in treatment of Rs.7,39,075/- as revenue expenditure ignoring the fact that the expenditure incurred would give the assessee benefits of enduring nature.

The appellant prays that the order of the ld. CIT(A) be set aside and the order of the AO be restored.

The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add any other grounds which may be necessary.” During the course of hearing,the Authorised Representative(AR)stated that the tax effect involved in the case was less than Rs.3 lakhs,that the appeal was not maintainable in light of the CBDT circular dated 09.02.2011.The Departmental Represetative(DR)fairly conceded that the tax effect in the case before was below the monetary limit prescribed by the Board. Considering the above facts,we dismiss the appeal filed by the AO because of the low tax effect. As a result, appeal filed by the AO stands dismissed. फलतः िनधा"रती अिधकारी "ारा दा"खल की गई अपील नामंजूर की जाती है. Order pronounced in the open court on 1st January, 2016. आदेश क" घोषणा खुले "यायालय म" "दनांक 1 जनवरी, 2016 को क" गई । जय गग" /Sanjay Garg) (राजे" / RAJENDRA) (संसंसंसंजय गग" जय गग" जय गग" "ाियक सद" / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद" / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER मुंबई/Mumbai,िदनांक/Date: 01.01.2016 व.िन.स.Jv.Sr.PS. 1

ITA 7852/M/11(07-08)

आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.Appellant /अपीलाथ"

Respondent /""थ" 3.The concerned CIT(A)/संब" अपीलीय आयकर आयु", 4.The concerned CIT /संब" आयकर आयु" 5.DR E Bench, ITAT, Mumbai /िवभागीय "ितिनिध, खंडपीठ,आ.अ."ाया.मुंबई 6.Guard File/गाड" फाईल स"ािपत "ित //// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार Dy./Asst.

ITO 7(3)3, MUMBAI vs. TWINCITY GLASS P. LTD, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments