DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IMPULSE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the entire appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Both parties agreed that the appeal should be dismissed on this ground.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2006-07, challenging deletions made on account of disallowances under Section 14A, treatment of software expenditure, and excess commission paid to directors. The appeal was recalled for adjudication of one ground.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable given the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI
PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of ld.
CIT (Appeals)-XIII, New Delhi for the Assessment Year 2006-07.
Grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue read as under :-
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,33,225/- made on account of disallowances u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of I.T. Rule. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,22,650/- made on account of treatment of software expenditure as capital in nature.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.67,80,922/- made on account of excess commission paid to the directors.”
3, We note that earlier this appeal was disposed off vide order dated 12.03.2019. Subsequently, it was recalled to hear ground no.2 hereinabove on the ground that the same was not adjudicated. Pursuant to the aforesaid recall, we have heard the appeal.
Upon hearing both the counsels and perusing the records, it transpires that the tax effect in the entire appeal is below the tax limit fixed by the CBDT for filing the appeal before the ITAT. Hence, both the counsels agreed that this appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed having low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019 vide which the Revenue has been directed not to prefer any appeal in case the tax effect is less than Rs.50,00,000/-.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 26th day of December, 2023.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
