THE DCIT, THRISSUR vs. M/S.KSE LTD, TRICHUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 377/COCH/2016Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 June 2017AY 2005-063 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 Revenue's appeal. This was based on a CBDT circular that stipulated a monetary limit for filing appeals, which the current appeal fell below.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an order of the CIT(A) concerning the assessment year 2005-06. The appeal raised a solitary issue regarding the reduction of subsidy from the cost of assets for WDV calculation.

What were the issues?

Whether subsidy received should be reduced from the cost of assets for calculating WDV. The maintainability of the appeal due to falling below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

For Appellant: Shri P.Harikrishnan Unni, CA
For Respondent: Shri A. Dhanaraj, Sr. DR, Shri P.Harikrishnan Unni, CA
Hearing: 07/06/2017Pronounced: 07/06/2017

Per GEORGE GEORGE K.,JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the Revenue is directed against the order of the

CIT(A), Thrissur dated 10/06/2016. The relevant assessment year is 2005-06

2.

The solitary issue that arises for our consideration is whether subsidy received

should be reduced from the cost of assets for the purpose of calculating WDV as

per Explanation 10 of section 43(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

2 I.T.A.No.377/Coch/2016

3.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that the

monetary limit in this case is below the prescribed limit mentioned in the CBDT

Circular No. 21/2015 (dated 10/12/2015) for filing an appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

The Ld. DR was unable to controvert the above submission.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on

record. In view of the above Board’s Circular, the appeal of the Revenue is

dismissed as not maintainable. However, if there are situations enumerated in the

Board’s Circular for filing the appeal before the Tribunal despite the monetary limit

being below the prescribed limit, the Revenue shall be at liberty to file M.A. for

recalling this order

6.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on 07-06-2017.

sd/- sd/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ( GEORGE GEORGE K.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Place: Kochi Dated: 07 June, 2017 GJ Copy to: 1. M/s. KSE Ltd., Solvent Road, Irinjalkuda, Thrissur-680 121. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Thrissur.

3 I.T.A.No.377/Coch/2016

3.

The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals),Thrissur. 4. The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Thrissur. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Cochin Bench, Cochin. 6. Guard File. By Order

(ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T., Cochin

More judgments on Section 43(1)

All 613 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →