|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 641 Records
-
2021 (3) TMI 1401
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee SWD service provider and employee cost as more than 25% of the revenue need to be deselected.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1400
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Assessee is engaged in the business of providing software development services in the field of leasing, loan accounting and portfolio management solutions, thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected.
As relying on M/S. EMC SOFTWARE AND SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED case [2019 (7) TMI 1921 - ITAT CHENNAI] we direct exclusion of Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. and Persistent Systems Ltd. from the list of comparable companies.
Negative working capital while making Transfer Pricing adjustment - HELD THAT:- We notice that the issue relating to negative working capital has been examined by the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. M/s e4e Business Solutions India P Ltd [2020 (12) TMI 1255 - ITAT BANGALORE] and it was held that negative working capital adjustment is not required in the case of a captive service provider, since it is fully insulated by its AE against working capital risks.Thus we direct the AO/TPO not to make negative working capital adjustment.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1399
Correct head of income - interest received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - part take the character of the compensation and would fall under the head “Capital gains” or “Income from other sources” - HC held that interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation is to be treated as “income from other sources” and not under the head “Capital gains”- HELD THAT:- Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1398
Applicability of provision of section 115JB - provision for bad debt - assessee has not produced details of credit balance of provision of bad debt after set off of bad debt of relevant year - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee own case [2018 (7) TMI 2295 - ITAT JAIPUR] it is held that this issue is covered in favour of appellant. Therefore, provisions of section 115JB are not applicable in assessee's case and it is not to be subjected to MAT. This ground of appeal is allowed.
DR has not placed on record any new facts and judicial pronouncements, therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case as well as respectfully following the orders of the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal as well as decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we do not find any reason to interfere or deviate from the findings so recorded by the ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the same. Appeal of the revenue stands dismissed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1397
TP adjustment - arm’s length rate of interest to be charged on the loan advanced to AE - HELD THAT:- It is the case of the assessee that considering the LIBOR/EURIBOR rate of interest and the interest charged by various banks as noted by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his order, which varied between LIBOR (+) 1.75% to 4%, the interest charged at 3% is at arm’s length. As noted, before Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee has specifically submitted that the LIBOR rate prevailing during the year was 0.53% p.a. The aforesaid factual position has remained uncontroverted before us.
In assessee’s own case for assessment years 2012-13 and 2016-17 the interest charged at 3% on the loan granted to the same AE has been accepted by the TPO. Though, these orders passed by the TPO are for subsequent assessment years; however, they have persuasive value while determining the arm’s length rate of interest, as, there is no material change in the factual position.
We hold that interest charged at 3% on the loan advanced to EM Germany should be considered to be at arm’s length. Hence, there is no need for any adjustment. Accordingly, the addition made is deleted.
Disallowance made u/s 14A r.w.r.8D - As argued before rejecting assessee’s computation of disallowance and invoking rule 8D, the Assessing Officer has not recorded proper satisfaction - HELD THAT:- Legal position is fairly well settled that section 14A(2) of the Act mandates the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction indicating that the disallowance computed by the assessee is incorrect having regard to the books of account maintained by him. This condition has to be satisfied before invoking Rule 8D. In the facts of the present case, though, the assessee in specific terms has provided allocation of various expenditures for earning of exempt income, the Assessing Officer has neither dealt with the assessee’s claim nor has provided any reason as to why the claim of the assessee is not to be accepted in terms of section 14A(2) of the Act. Thus, in our considered opinion, the conditions of section 14A(2) in the present case has not been satisfied. In view of the above, we delete the disallowance.
Assessee appeal is allowed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1396
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - AO received some information from the Investigation Wing that the assessee had brought back some unaccounted income through shell companies - HELD THAT:- Which were those shell companies has not been mentioned in the reasons recorded. The ld. AR has pointed out that the assessee during the year did not get any profit on the alleged shares held/sold by him. The shares were sold by the assessee at cost price, therefore, there was no question of routing any unaccounted income by way of share profit. A perusal of the reasons recorded reveals that the AO did not correlate the information received by him from the Investigation Wing with the Income-Tax Return/accounts of the assessee. He reopened the assessment on the basis of borrowed satisfaction without verifying about the genuineness of the information received.
Such an information from Investigation Wing may give the AO the reasons to suspect, but the same does not constitute reasons to believe, until and unless the Assessing Officer satisfies himself about veracity of the information received from the Investigation Wing so as to form the belief that the income of the assessee for the year under consideration has escaped assessment. The necessary ingredients of forming belief by the Assessing Officer of escapement of income are missing in this case. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment being bad in law, the assessment order is quashed. The consequential additions made by the Assessing Officer are accordingly ordered to be deleted. Appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1393
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee captive software development service providers need to be deselected as comparable. Turnover more than 200 crores and hence cannot be considered as good comparable companies.
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - AR submitted that assessee had deducted tax under relevant provisions of the act. It has been also deposited with the government Treasury but same has not been verified - HELD THAT:- We remand this issue to Ld.AO for due verification of the TDS deducted in the light of records and documents filed by assessee. The Ld.AO shall verify the same and grant credit to the TDS against which tax has been deducted and deposited.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1388
Bogus purchase - addition made through accommodation entries received - HELD THAT:- Neither the copy of statement, nor any evidence proving the allegation was provided to the assessee to defend his case. No opportunity of cross-examination was allowed to the assessee though specifically asked for by the assessee. Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries [2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT] held that not allowing the assessee company to cross examine the witness by the adjudicating authority though the statements of those witness were made the basis of impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity.
We note that statement of Shri Gautam Jain has not been provided to the assessee. The opportunity of cross examination has not been provided to the assessee, therefore statement of Shri Gautam Jain does not apply to the assessee. That being so we decline to interfere in the order of the CIT(A), his order on this issue is hereby accepted and grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1387
Bogus Purchases - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- Hon`ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Nangalia Fabrics (P) Ltd, [2013 (8) TMI 80 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that where purchases were supported by bills, entries were made in books of account and payment was made by cheques, said purchases could not be held as bogus purchases.
Purchases are supported by bills, there is entries in the books of account, payment was made by account payee cheques and assessee maintains quantitative details, and we also noted that Assessing officer did not find any inflation in purchase price. Besides, Assessing officer has failed to prove that payment made by assessee for these purchases came back to assessee in cash. That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. CIT(A) in deleting the aforesaid additions. His order on this addition is, therefore, upheld and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Addition on account of unexplained, unsecured loan and disallowance of interest thereon - HELD THAT:- Once the AO gets hold of the PAN of the lenders, it was his duty to ascertain from the AO of those lenders, whether in their respective return they had shown existence of such amount of money and had further shown that those amount of money had been lent to the assessee. In the assessee`s case department had accepted repayment of loan in subsequent year. The assessee provided the assessing officer, the new addresses of these parties during the assessment proceedings along with the confirmations, ledger account, capital account, bank statement, Income Tax Return and computation of income. All these persons are assessed to tax and the balance sheet filed by them reflect the unsecured loans given to the assessee.
The transactions have been made through account payee cheques and the bank accounts have not been credited with any cash deposits. The loan amount has also been repaid during the subsequent assessment year. In view of the above facts, we note that assessee has discharged the onus of proof and therefore the addition made by the assessing officer and the consequent disallowance of the interest were rightly deleted by ld CIT(A). That being so, we decline to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), his order on this issue is hereby accepted and grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1385
Ex-parte order passed by CIT - Addition u/s 68 - Despite issuance of various fixation notices the assessee neither attended the appellate proceedings nor submitted any written statement/paper book in support of the grounds of appeal, CIT(A) therefore, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition HELD THAT:- It appears to us that in the reliance placed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao [1996 (3) TMI 92 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] is a misplaced one. Impugned order is not in compliance with the requirement of section 250 (6) which obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing, after stating the points for a determination and then rendered a decision on each of the points which arises for consideration with the reasons in support.
Further under section 251 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) has the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul and assessment and/or penalty. It is, therefore, clear that once the assessee filed an appeal under section 246A of the Act, it is not open for the Ld. CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal in limine without any reasons being assigned on the points from for a determination. According to us, therefore, the dismissal of appeal by Ld. CIT(A) in limine is incorrect because the impugned order does not render any assistance to us to appreciate the contentions of the assessee on merits. Further such an order does not render any assistance to us to appreciate the contentions of the assessee on merits. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1384
Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that there is no necessity of keeping this matter alive since the assessee has already applied for settlement of dispute under the Scheme. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue is liable to the dismissed as such. However, liberty is granted to the Revenue to seek restoration of this appeal in the event the application filed under Vivad Se Vishwas Tax Scheme is not accepted by the Department. As further made clear that in such eventuality if the Revenue seeks restoration of the present appeal by filing misc. application, the delay, if any, should be condoned without insisting upon filing any application for condonation of delay. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1381
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - allegation of defective notice u/s 274 and non specification of clear charge - non striking of inappropriate words - interest income received in respect of enhanced compensation - as per AO the assessee concealed the income - HELD THAT:- First of all, in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) there was no specific charges as relates to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. From the notice produced by the Ld. AR during the hearing, it can be seen that the AO was not sure under which limb of provisions of Section 271 the assessee is liable for penalty.
In the present case the enhanced compensation and interest received thereon was taken into account but the Assessing Officer observed that the interest received on compensation or interest received on enhanced compensation is taxable under the income from other sources and will not come under the purview of the exemption under Section 10(37) - AO initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as relating to concealment of income due to the fact that the assessee had not filed the return of income and never declared the compensation and the interest received thereon. Merely not filing the return of income cannot amount to concealment of income. Therefore we are taking up the contention of the assessee that there is no particular limb mentioned in the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 - See M/S SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS [2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER]
As inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck off and the notice does not specify as to under which limb of the provisions, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable and has to be deleted. Appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1379
TP Adjustment - Comparable selection - determination of ALP for provision of SWD services - HELD THAT:- Companies functionally dissmilar with that of assessee need to b deselected from list of comparables.
As relying on case of M/s.NXP India Ltd. [2020 (5) TMI 86 - ITAT BANGALORE] we direct exclusion of the following three companies from the list of comparable companies viz., CG Vak Software & Exports Ltd., Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., and Persistent Systems Ltd.
Also we find that in the decision in the case of NXP India Pvt.Ltd. [2020 (5) TMI 86 - ITAT BANGALORE] directed inclusion of the following 2 companies viz., Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd., and R.Systems International Ltd.
Inclusion of R.Systems International Ltd., in the list of comparable companies and remand the question of comparability of the company M/S.Helios & Matheson Pvt.Ltd., to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration as directed in the case of NXP India Pvt.Ltd. (supra) after affording Assessee opportunity of being heard.
Spry Resources India Pvt. Ltd to be included as relying on case of Synamedia India (P) Ltd. [2020 (5) TMI 211 - ITAT BANGALORE] dealt with an identical claim made by the assessee who a SWD service provider such as the assessee and in whose case also, the very same 7 comparables chosen in the case of assessee in the appeal was chosen as comparable by the TPO.
Inclusion of a company by name Evoke Technologies Ltd. - Reasons given by the DRP for not considering this company as a comparable company was due to inconsistency in export turnover for different AYs and incurring of consultancy charges which was alien in the business of SWD services. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to a decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Sumi Motherson Innovative Engineering Ltd. [2014 (2) TMI 652 - ITAT DELHI]
Tribunal took the view that while applying TNMM, it is not allowed to compare each and every item of operating cost incurred by assessee with similar cost in case of comparables to ask for adjustment, rather it is overall effect of all such individual items culminating into operating profit, which is considered for benchmarking assessee's international transaction.
We are of the view that Evoke Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which is admittedly rendering SWD services should be regarded as a comparable company and the reasons given for not including the comparable by the DRP cannot be sustained. We direct the inclusion of the aforesaid companies.
Nature of expenses - software expenses - revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- We have perused the final Order of Assessment and in para 2, the AO has not followed the directions of the DRP. The DRP had given a specific direction to the AO to examine the invoice and ascertain the nature of expenses and if it is noticed that the expenses are only renewal of licence fees for application software for an year or less, then the expenditure has to be allowed as a revenue expenditure. We therefore deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of AO and remand the issue to AO for fresh consideration in accordance with directions of the DRP. We hold and direct accordingly.
Disallowance on account of provision for leave encashment - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that deduction to the extent of leave encashment as actually been paid should be allowed. We direct the AO to examine the claim of the assessee in this regard and allow deduction on the basis of the actual payment. The other grounds of appeal are purely consequential and does not require any adjudication.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1373
Disallowance of ISO Expenses - CIT-A deleted the addition - as per AO allowing the entire expenditure in one year might give a very distorted picture of the profits of a particular year since the claim of assessee is in violation of doctrine of matching principles particularly when ISO certifications is valid for various years. - HELD THAT:- We note that these expenses are generally incurred for getting a certification from the International Standardization Organization on a periodical basis for systems and procedures of operations implemented in the organization which are in accordance with the standards laid down by these international bodies. This certificate is basically issued and renewed from time to time to bring forth the fact that the systems and procedures of operations implemented in the organization are in accordance with the standards laid down, therefore it is revenue in nature.
We note that by making payments for obtaining ISO 9002 certification, the fixed capital of the company has not enhanced in any manner. It rather created a positive image of the products of the assessee for the smooth conduct of the business. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in treating the entire amount as Revenue in nature. That being so, we decline to interfere in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), his order on this issue is hereby accepted and grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
Receipt of subsidy under the 50% subsidy ASIDE scheme - Revenue or capital receipt - treated as income of the assessee or not? - subsidy was given towards the administrative expenses incurred during the execution of project for upgradation of infrastructure facilities - as per CIT-A subsidy is capital in nature - HELD THAT:- As clearly mentioned in the sanction letter that the subsidy has been sanctioned for the "Treatment Facility of Effluent Treatment Project for Ankleshwar, Jhagadia and Panoli Industrial Estate.The above components are covered under capital nature and thus, the same has been considered as capital subsidy by ld CIT(A). That being so, we decline to interfere in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), his order on this issue is hereby accepted and grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1371
Taxable income of EOU for which deduction u/s 10B claimed - Allocation of Head Office Expenditure to Non-EOU units for the purpose of determining division wise profitability - assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of agro chemicals & drug intermediates - HELD THAT:- AO simply allocated the CBD expenses on the basis of turnover , by ignoring the criteria of gross block of assets and manpower employed in the respective units without any basis. The assessee tried to justify its basis of allocation by stating that all the units are though operational but at a different level of age of operationality and that the adoption of turnover criteria would be lopsided as certain units are capital intensive and labour intensive.
The assessee company had adopted the balanced approach by taking the average of gross block of assets, turnover and manpower employed in the respective units for the purpose of allocation of common expenses. As pleaded that the result of the allocation of common expenses on the basis of turnover had resulted in the reduction in the profit of EOU unit of Rs 27,92,178/- and consequently resulted in reduction of loss of Non EOU unit by the same amount. Despite these contentions, the ld CITA simply upheld the action of the ld AO without giving any independent findings. We find that since the allocation basis of common expenditure has been rejected by the lower authorities without any basis and by totally ignoring the various contentions raised thereon in respect of each of the behaviour of various units and the past assessments framed in the hands of the assessee u/s 143(3)
We are inclined to grant relief to the assessee by applying the principle of consistency and in the absence of change in facts during the year under consideration. Accordingly, the reduction in profit of EOU unit and consequential reduction of loss of Non EOU unit by the same amount is hereby reversed and relief is granted to the assessee. Accordingly, the Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed.
Inter related and deal with allocation of research & development expenses to various units - assessee had claimed deduction u/s 35(1)(iv) towards capital expenditure on research and development - HELD THAT:- We find from the perusal of the financial statements of the assessee enclosed in the paper book filed before us, R & D unit is an independent unit having its own separate plant and situated in a different location. The activity carried out in the said R&D unit is totally different from that carried out at the other units i.e research for developing new products and processes. The said R&D unit has a separate electric meter, has independent staff, unit requires independent inputs or raw materials etc. Separate books of accounts are maintained for this R &D unit so as to deduce the division wise profitability. The said unit does not need any support from any of the other units and can function independently having its own customers and capable of generating independent revenue on its own. Hence expenditure of R&D unit cannot be apportioned to EOU units which has no connection with R&D unit.
We find from the past behaviour of the department in the income tax scrutiny assessments of the assessee, the revenue had not sought to disturb the contentions of the assessee with regard to this impugned issue. No addition or disallowance could be made merely based on the concession given by the assessee on without prejudice basis that 5% of R &D expenses could be allocated to other units. There is no estoppel against the statute. There is no basis also for the said allocation to be carried out. No contrary evidence has been brought on record by the ld DR before us at the time of hearing. Hence we are not inclined to accede to the request of the ld DR that atleast 5% of expenses should be subject matter of allocation to other units. There is absolutely no change in the facts and circumstances of the case during the year under consideration and hence the revenue having accepted the stand of the assessee in earlier years has to strictly abide by the principle of consistency.
With regard to yet another contention of the ld AO that deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act could be claimed only by a company manufacturing or producing products, we find that the said section 35(2AB) of the Act does not restrict the research and development only with respect to the products already in existence. From the bare reading of the Explanation to Section 35(2AB) of the Act, we find that ‘expenditure on scientific research’, in relation to drugs and pharmaceuticals, shall include expenditure incurred on clinical drug trial, obtaining approval from any regulatory authority under any Central, State or Provincial Act and filing an application for a patent under the Patents Act, 1970. It is not in dispute that the assessee is already engaged in manufacturing pharma products. Accordingly, the assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act.
We hold that allocation of expenses to EOU units, allocation of deduction u/s 35(1)(iv) and allocation of deduction u/s 35(2AB) to other units is not warranted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1370
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal in assessee’s own case [2021 (2) TMI 1296 - ITAT DELHI] in view of the admitted position that the facts and circumstances involved for this year are identical to ones involved in assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, in which the issue was restored to the file of Assessing Officer to take a fresh view in the light of directions given in [2014 (7) TMI 1314 - ITAT DELHI] for assessment year 2009-10, we are of the considered opinion that the request of the assessee can be accepted. We accordingly, while setting aside the impugned findings of the authorities below, restore the issue to the file of Assessing Officer to decide the same in the light of the view to be taken for earlier assessment years. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1365
Criteria of payment of minimum wages - Temporary employees entitlement to regular pay-scale on account of their performing the same duties, which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis - Employees of outsourced service providing agency - Employment as daily wages casual workers and they shall be paid minimum wages/salary equal to those employees who are working as daily wages casual workers - casual workers have been engaged through outsourcing agency - whether temporary engaged employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointee, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like) are entitled to minimum of the regular pay-scale on account of their performing the same duties, which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis? - writ-petitioners are employees of outsourced service providing agency and secondly, a large number of casual workers have been engaged through outsourcing agency and they will also claim the same benefit of parity in their wages - HELD THAT:- In Sabha Shanker Dube vs. Divisional Forest Officer and Others [2019 (4) TMI 228 - SUPREME COURT] Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, “The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh [2020 (10) TMI 1323 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] is whether temporary employees (daily wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and likewise) are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scales on account of their performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the sanctioned posts. After considering several judgments including the judgments of this Court in Tilak Raj (State of Haryana vs. Tilak Raj - 2003 (7) TMI 741 - SUPREME COURT]) and Surjit Singh (State of Punjab vs. Surjit Singh [2009 (8) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT]), this Court held that temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay-scales which are applicable to the regular employees holding the same post.”
In the light of the above discussions and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not erred in passing the impugned judgment. We do not find any perversity and infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeals. All these three Special Appeals are liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1364
Maintainability of appeal on low tax effect - monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court - correctness of ITAT's conclusion that the CIT(A) has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to delete the liability - HELD THAT:- The above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to ₹ 1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in this case is less than the threshold limit.
In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open
-
2021 (3) TMI 1363
Maintainability of appeal on low tax effect - monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court - correctness of ITAT's conclusion that the CIT(A) has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to delete the liability - HELD THAT:- The above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to ₹ 1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in this case is less than the threshold limit.
In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open
-
2021 (3) TMI 1362
Maintainability of appeal on low tax effect - monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court - correctness of ITAT's conclusion that the CIT(A) has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to delete the liability - HELD THAT:- The above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to ₹ 1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in this case is less than the threshold limit.
In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open
........
|
