Try our new portal www.taxtmi.com for a better experience!

Home

Case Laws

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2017 2017 (8) This

Law
Court
Citation	- -
Landmark
Order by

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 361 to 380 of 1742 Records

2017 (8) TMI 1385

Exigibility to tax under section 4 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 - gift-tax on surrender of share on a reconstitution of the firm - transfer of shares effected by some partners of the firm in favour of a newly inducted partner, virtually suffering a reduction in the share of profit simultaneously facilitating extension/increase of profits to the incoming partner by itself - sufficient consideration for the purpose of the exemption - Held that:- Reduction of shares at the hands of the assessee at the time of reconstitution of the firm, to the extent the same has been transferred in favour of the newly inducted partners, is for adequate consideration and that it is not a "gift" in terms of section 4(1)(a) of the Gift- tax Act so as to suffer any tax liability. Answering the question as above, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal in terms of section 26(6) of the Act for further steps.
2017 (8) TMI 1384

Initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Held that:- Resolution Plan envisages for insolvency resolution of SDAL, and ensure continuity of business along with most effective use of the assets and equipments of SDAL and the amalgamation of the Corporate Debtor with the Resolution applicant will bring in the number of operating and financial synergies, since both the companies relates to Aluminum Alloy wheel manufacturing industry, in which the corporate debtor is engaged in the manufacturing of Aluminum Alloy wheel and that of the applicant is in the field of painted and chrome plated Aluminum Alloy Wheel etc.
The applicant (applicant of resolution plan) in the past has settled dues pertaining to 5 banks of the Corporate Debtor, which constituted 93% of the borrowings of corporate debtor. And the same was also recognized by BIFR in one of its proceedings. Applicant has proven track record of optimum utilization of the infrastructure and manufacturing facilities of the corporate debtor and it has successfully provide continued and meaning employment to direct/indirect work force of over 1500 employees. Most of these employees are absorbed by the applicant when the corporate debtor ceased operations. It is currently single largest employer of extremely skilled and unskilled persons in the Zone and more than 1500-2000 families depend on the applicant.
Apart from others as provided in the resolution plan, it would be in the best interest of the Company, its employees in particular, public in general, and also in the interest of financial creditors to accept the Resolution plan in question. We are unanimous in accepting Resolution plan in question as it meets all parameters including legal and moral.
2017 (8) TMI 1383

Condonation of delay - e-filing of appeal - Held that:- Direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay in dispute. And also in the interest of justice, set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, under the law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the appeal on merit and pass a speaking order, keeping in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hossein Kasam Dada vs. State of MP (1953 (2) TMI 35 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)
2017 (8) TMI 1382

Addition towards contribution to the State Renewal Fund - Held that:- State Renewal Fund was set up to provide safety to the employees working under the state owned entities in case of restructuring/wind-up/closure of the undertaking. Based on the study done by the State Government, the assessee has provided an amount of ₹ 20 lacs for the purposes of welfare and benefit of the employees. As following case of Principal CIT vs Rajasthan State Seed Corporation Ltd [2016 (9) TMI 59 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] we affirm the order of the CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the disallowance made by the AO towards contribution to State Renewal Fund.
Addition made on account of late deposition of EPF after due date of the PF Act - Held that:- Admittedly, employees’s contribution to PF amounting to ₹ 124,442 for the month of August 2010 has been paid by the appellant on 21.09.2010 within the same financial year 2010-11. Addition rightly deleted
Addition of sum debited by the assessee in IEC plan - Held that:- The expenditure incurred on mass communication and public awareness for the use of the renewable energy sources and energy conservation has thus been incurred for the purposes of the business of the assessee company and is allowable under the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act. In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the disallowance made by the AO towards expenditure under the IEC plan.
Addition of expenses on Rural Village Electrification (RVE) - Held that:- The appellant is the state nodal agency of MNRE for popularizing the usage of renewable energy sources and as part of its stated business objectives, has incurred the subject expenditure. The expenditure has thus a direct linkage with the activities of the assessee company and has been incurred for the purposes of the business of the assessee company and is allowable under the provisions of section 37(1). From perusal of assessment order, it is also noted that the assessee company has received ₹ 33,50,000 as service charged for electrification of rural hamlets under the RVE Program 2010-11. It thus further strengthens the contention of the assessee company in terms of incurring the subject expenditure for its stated objectives and in respect of which revenues have also been generated during the year. In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the disallowance
Bio mass fuel supply study expenses - Held that:- The expenditure on study of biomass is thus an expenditure undertaken as part of development and promotion of renewable energy sources in the State of Rajasthan. Further, the ld CIT(A) has given a finding that based on this study, appellant has issued work orders to various applicants for which it has received application and processing fees and the said finding remain uncontroverted before us. In the result, we are of the view that expenditure on the subject study is an expenditure incurred in the course of carrying out existing business of the assessee company and not in respect of new line of business, being the main contention of the AO to hold the expenditure as capital and enduring in nature.
Extension fee/cancellation fee - Held that:- there is clearly no certainty of realization as the action for levy of extension fees itself has not been initiated or pending consideration of the assessee company itself. Once the assessee company initiates the action for levy extension fees, various contractual factors are taken into consideration, the project owners are given an opportunity and they are heard and thereafter, extension fees is finally levied. In some cases, it has been explained that the applicant may opt for cancellation of the project instead of paying the extension fees. In the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, we donot see any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the addition made by the assessing officer. In the result, both the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed.
Eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4)(iv) in respect of its seven wind and solar power plants established at various locations in Rajasthan - Held that:- These are employees who are involved in the overall management and supervision in technical and financial arena and employed at the Head office and thus have a direct nexus with the activities of the seven plants if not at the operational level but definitely at the strategic and management level. The salary expenses of ₹ 45,77,500/- is thus required to be allocated to the eligible units in the ratio of their turnover to the total turnover of the assessee company. The AO is accordingly directed to allocate common expenditure of ₹ 45,77,500 to the power units out of total expenditure of ₹ 3,02,06,576/- in the ratio of their turnover to the total turnover while working out the eligible profits under section 80IA of the Act.
Expenditure which falls under the head administrative/establishment and other relates expenses - Held that:- As we have directed earlier to allocate the salary expenses of the Head office employees, the common head office expenses are also directed to be allocated in the ratio of turnover of the power plants to the total turnover of the assessee company. In our view, this is the most rational and reasonable basis for allocation of common expenses in absence of anything more specific which has been brought on record. In any case, the pool of common expenses has been brought down to a large extent as the expenses which have a direct nexus with the promotional activities have already been excluded and the assessee has also accepted this allocation methodology. The AO is accordingly directed to allocate ₹ 90,68,091 out of the total administrative/establishment expenses to the power units in the ratio of their turnover to the total turnover while working out the eligible profits under section 80IA of the Act.
Income flows directly from the business of generation of power and is thus eligible for deduction under section 80IA. It represent an amount which is received by the assessee from the supplier of the power plant for the shortfall in the minimum guaranteed generation of power. Had the power plant generated minimum guaranteed power during the year, the assessee would not have been eligible for such revenues. The revenues thus earned have a direct nexus with the running of the power plants and represent the minimum standard of performance of the power plants and compensate the assessee for any shortfall in the generation of minimum guaranteed power.
In the present case also, expenditure is incurred on the directions of the Government with which assessee has to closely interact for its day to day business activities. Therefore, in the business interest, assessee has contributed such amount and a request is also made to provide the accommodation facility to its officers in the Rajasthan Bhawan. Hence, the expenditure so incurred is allowable expenditure u/s 37(1). In view of above, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) be directed to be deleted.
Deduction u/s 80-IA in respect of interest income - Held that:- The instant case is similar to a situation where interest is earned on fixed deposits which are placed with banks for the purposes of availing credit facilities from the bank wherein the Courts from time to time have held that such interest income does not have an immediate nexus with the business of the undertaking. Hence, in our view, the Ld CIT(A) was right in law in rejecting the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act in respect of interest income.
Regarding allocation of employee costs and administrative/establishment expenses are concerned, we have dealt with the issue in AY 2011-12 in great detail. Following the same, common head office expenses pertaining to employees has been stated to be ₹ 16,58,142 and pertaining to administrative/establishment expenses comes to ₹ 41,34,609. The AO is accordingly directed to allocate these common head office expenses to the power generating units in the ratio of their turnover to the total turnover of the assessee company. The grounds of appeal are disposed off with above directions.
Assessee company is held eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4) in respect of receipts on account of shortfall/low generation.
AO be directed to exclude the sale/stock of carbon financial instruments in computing the total income of the assessee being a capital receipt.
Allocate common expenses to the power generating units in the ratio of their turnover to the total turnover of the assessee company.
Disallowance of publicity and advertisement expenses on account of topographic survey, recruitments, technical investigation, printing of energy policy, inviting tenders, etc. - Held that:- One of the business objects of the assessee company is to promote and facilitate energy conservation and popularize the usage of renewable energy sources & encourage companies to set up renewable energy plants. As part of its activities, the assessee company has incurred the publicity and advertisement expenditure during the year. CIT(A) has given a findings on perusal of ledger account that these expenditure largely related to payment to advertising agencies and printing and publishing agencies.
Eligible for deduction u/s 80IA - Held that:- As we have held in AY 2011-12, the common head office expenses need to be allocated to the power generating units based on its turnover as a percentage of total turnover of the assessee company. Given that there is no finding of either the AO or the ld CIT(A) regarding the quantum of common head offices expenses, we are setting aside the matter to the file of the AO to examine the contentions of the assessee company afresh and once the common expenses are determined, the AO is directed to allocate the same to the power generating units based on its turnover. The assessee’s grounds are disposed off with above directions.
2017 (8) TMI 1381

Claim exemption u/s 11 - proof of charitable activities - Held that:- The law in different facet in respect of mutual concerns is now well summed up by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Bankipur Club[1997 (5) TMI 392 - SUPREME COURT] held that the object of the assessee company claiming to be a ‘mutual concern’or a ‘club’, is to carry on a particular business and the money is realised both from the members and the non-members, for the same consideration by giving the same or similar facilities to all alike in respect of the one and the same business carried on by it, the dealings as a whole, disclose the same profit-earning motive and are alike tainted with commerciality and the resultant surplus is profit-income liable to tax.
In respect of proviso inserted by the Finance Act 2008 to section 2(15), one has to keep in mind that such entities shall not be eligible for exemption u/s 11 or u/s 10(23C) of the Act, if they carry on commercial activities. One has to examine the nature, scope, extent and frequency of such activity.
We have perused the relevant materials on record and find that neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has examined the above aspects while arriving at their conclusion. In view of the above, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO to make a fresh assessment in the light of our observation at para 7.3 here-in-above and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We direct the assessee to file the relevant details before the AO. Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
2017 (8) TMI 1380

Recovery of wrongly availed CENVAT credit - Jurisdiction of authorities to re-determine tax liability - scope for liability for tax on non-existent servicing charge - Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Credit was sought to be denied only on the ground that such servicing charge having been done away with, it was no longer a component of the price of input and, hence, outside the ambit of rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that:- From the decision of MDS Switchgear Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad [2001 (4) TMI 130 - CEGAT, MUMBAI] it is held authorities conferred with jurisdiction over the recipient is not competent to re-determine the tax liability suffered on the input at the supply end - denial of credit not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
2017 (8) TMI 1379

CENVAT credit on inputs short received - assessee had claimed CENVAT credit on base oil as per the invoice quantity which was in excess of that entered in the internal records of the appellant - availment to the extent of permitted tolerance - re-credit - Held that:- The issue is covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai v. Bhuwalka steel Industries Ltd [2009 (11) TMI 177 - CESTAT, CHENNAI [LB]] wherein held different types of shortages cannot be dealt with according to any one inflexible and fixed standard for the purpose of allowing credit under Rule 3(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Decision to allow or not to allow credit in any particular case will depend on various factors.
In the absence of any exercise having been carried out before issue of the show cause notice or examination in the orders of the lower authorities, the claim of Revenue to set aside the impugned orders is not tenable - appeal dismissed.
2017 (8) TMI 1378

CENVAT credit - input services - services for personal use of employees - tax paid to providers of transport service for staff - outdoor catering services - Circular no. 943/4/2011-CX dated 29th April 2011 of Central Board of Excise & Customs stating that The principle is that cenvat credit is not allowed when any goods and services are used primarily for personal use or consumption of employees - Held that:- The disallowance of CENVAT credit by the lower authorities is not order.
Reliance placed in the case of M/S. MARVEL VINYLS LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. INDORE [2016 (11) TMI 1126 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that the interpretation of the lower authorities that motor vehicle are not capital goods for the services recipient cannot be appreciated in as much as motor vehicles are admittedly capital goods in terms of the Rule 2 (A) of Cenvat Credit Rules - credit of tax paid to providers of transport service for staff allowed.
In Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Nashik [2014 (12) TMI 596 - CESTAT MUMBAI], it was held that even the Government while issuing the budget clarification or subsequent circular has clarified that what is not eligible is that service which is meant for personal use or consumption by an employee or the cost of which is included as part of salary of the employee as a cost to company basis - Cenvat credit on outdoor catering services allowed.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
2017 (8) TMI 1377

Addition u/s 40A - cash repayment of loan - proof of urgency for cash payment - payment exceeding permissible limits - Held that:- There is no violation of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. As it is abundantly clear from the facts that the assessee has paid ₹ 6,03,150/- to Shivam Enterprises on the instruction of its creditor M/s Charco Electronics Pvt. Ltd, through account payee cheque. There is no cash payment at all. Therefore, we are of the view that addition made by assessing officer and confirmed by ld CIT(A) needs to be deleted. Accordingly, we delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee.
Transfer the amount for sundry creditor to loan creditor with the motive to hoodwink the revenue - Held that:- Assessee’s creditor M/s Rollataniers Niryat Pvt. Ltd. has been renamed in the books of assessee as a loan creditor and just to rename the liability does not mean that the liability has been paid by the assessee. The same liability remained in the books of accounts of the assessee and the payment has not been made by the assessee. The AO also did not dispute the fact that the liability of ₹ 70,00,000/-, did not exist in the books of the assessee. Just because that the trade creditor has been renamed by the assessee, as unsecured loan does not mean that the assessee has paid any liability or has done any illegal activity to conceal the particulars of income.
Payment of ESI and payment of EPF after due date and in violation of provisions of section 36(1) (va) - Held that:- In the instant case the assessee has paid ESI liability of ₹ 2813/- and provident fund liability of ₹ 63299/- within the due date of filing the income tax return. It is a sufficient compliance, therefore, respectfully following the decision of jurisdictional Kolkata High Court in case of CIT Vs. Vijay Shree Ltd. (2011 (9) TMI 30 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT), we are of the view that there is no any infirmity in the order passed by ld. CIT(A). Hence, we confirm the order passed by ld. CIT(A).
2017 (8) TMI 1376

Misdeclaration of imported goods - Import of Hazardous waste - Held that: - Appellant could not discard any of the reasons stated above leading any defence - Misdeclaration of the description of the goods resulted in violation of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-14 read with the rules made thereunder and Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 - appeal dismissed.
2017 (8) TMI 1375

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - Held that:- In the case in hand, there was no such mention. The decision of Mahesh Gandhi (2017 (3) TMI 132 - ITAT MUMBAI) relied by the Ld. DR is also inapplicable as in that case the assessee has filed revised computation of income on directors fee and capital gain on HDFC mutual fund during the course of assessment proceedings and the AO has specifically recorded findings in para 5 of the assessment order is details about “concealment of income”. Hence, facts of the said case are entirely different.
Considering above facts and circumstances and relying judicial precedents as discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable in law, as no specific charge was levied in penalty show cause notices, hence, it is cancelled. Accordingly, all six appeals of assessee are allowed.
2017 (8) TMI 1374

Revision u/s 263 - disclosure of sale consideration - order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue - Held that:- A reference to the provisions of s. 263 shows that jurisdiction thereunder can be exercised if the CIT finds that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Mere audit objection and merely because a different view could be taken, were not enough to say that the order of the AO was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The jurisdiction could be exercised if the CIT was satisfied that the basis for exercise of jurisdiction existed. No rigid rule could be laid down about the situation when the jurisdiction can be exercised. Whether satisfaction of the CIT for exercising jurisdiction was called for or not, has to be decided having regard to a given fact situation.
In the present case, the Tribunal has held that the assessee had disclosed that out of sale consideration, a sum of ₹ 1 lakh was to be received for sale of permit. If that is so, there was no error in the view taken by the AO and no case was made out for invoking jurisdiction under s. 263.
Applying the propositions of law laid down to the facts of this case, we uphold the contention of the assessee that the exercise of powers by the ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act, is bad in law. Hence, we cancel this order passed under section 263 - Decided in favour of assessee.
2017 (8) TMI 1373

The Supreme Court of India allowed the appellant to file a review application before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal within three weeks. The tribunal had not properly considered the appellant's shareholding, leading to the permission for review. The civil appeal was disposed of with this liberty.
2017 (8) TMI 1372

CENVAT credit - insurance coverage taken by the appellant for their employees including Group Personal Accident, Life Insurance and Group Mediclaim, as also the vehicle insurance.
Held that: - the issue stand decided in the case of FIEM Industries Ltd. Versus CCE, Chennai III [2016 (3) TMI 1165 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], where it was held that Exclusion of insurance service in certain events has been incorporated into the law w.e.f. 01.04.2011. That is only in respect of the insurance coverage given to employees during journey availing leave travel concession. But that had not taken away welfare of workers under the Factories Act, from its fold if insurance service is availed to overcome difficulties under Workmen Compensation Act, in case of hazard - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
2017 (8) TMI 1371

Corporate insolvency process - corporate debtor has filed objection mainly on the ground that the application does not contain any signature of the authorized person to act on behalf of the financial creditor - Held that:- If a person has already given notice under SARFAESI Act, then there will be no bar for initiating corporate insolvency resolution process under I & B Code, 2016. It is also pertinent to mention that I & B Code, 2016 has the overriding effect over other laws and after the admission of the proceeding under I & B Code, 2016 other proceeding anywhere shall be stayed as per the provision of moratorium u/ s Sec. 13 and 14 of the I & B Code.
Therefore, by issuing a notice under Sec. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, will not have any adverse effect on the competency of a petition filed by the applicant for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process.
The financial creditor has proposed the name of Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta, who is competent to work as IRP. No disciplinary proceeding is pending against him. Therefore, he also deserves to be appointed as Interim Resolution Professional.
The petition filed by the financial creditor under Sec. 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is hereby admitted for initiating the Corporate Resolution Process and declare a moratorium and public announcement as stated in Sec. 13 of the IBC, 2016. The moratorium is declared for the purposes referred to in Sec. 14 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2017 (8) TMI 1370

Percentage of acceptable loss of oil - handling and storing lubricating oil and grease - percentage of loss which was adopted at 0.21% was for the period 1997-98 - C.B.E.C. dated 4-10-1976 - Held that: - Admittedly, the most important factor which has to be considered while assessing the spillage loss or loss which may occur during the course of packing is, the manner in which the repacking or packing is done at the factory of the concerned assessee - Obviously, in the year 1976, there was no much automation in various factories except in auto mobile industries. The percentage of loss which was adopted at 0.21% was for the period 1997-98. Subsequently, the loss in case of other assessees has been fixed between 0.4% to 0.5%. Therefore, it will be inequitable for the second respondent to adopt a percentage of loss which was fixed in the 1976 regardless of the facilities available in the assessee’s factory.
The matter is remanded back to the first respondent to apply a percentage for spillage and loss during repacking by calculating an average, which was adopted in the case of the petitioner for the earlier three assessment years - petition allowed by way of remand.
2017 (8) TMI 1369

Reply affidavit - Toll abandonment - Held that: - the respondent is allowed 10 days' time to file reply affidavit enclosing copy of the dispute, if any, they filed with regard to toll abandonment or any other dispute - Post the matter on 1st August, 2017.
2017 (8) TMI 1368

Expenses relatable to exempt income by invoking the provisions of section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Held that:- The investment made by the assessee would be out of the interest free funds available with assessee in the shape of reserve and surplus which is more than the investment in shares and growth of funds from where the assessee has earned this dividend income. We find that this issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) and hence, this issue is decided in favour of assessee.
As regards, the disallowance of 0.5% of the average value of investment the assessee requested for setting aside the issue to the file of the AO for verification and restricted this disallowance to the extent of investment made in equity from where dividend income is earned and excluded the investment wherein dividend is earned on growth of funds. On this the learned Sr. DR has not objected. We find the plea of the assessee is reasonable and we restore this issue back to the file of the AO
Disallowing the depreciation on capital equipments i.e. Wind Energy Generators and Accessories - Held that:- assessee purchased 2 (two) Enercon make 800 KW type E-48 wind energy converters and accessories to be installed at site. The installation work was to be completed by 31-12-2006 but there was delay of 15 months and actually, installation was done by Ms Enercon (India) Ltd. in March 2008. The assessee received liquidated damages of ₹ 20,59,600/- during the period FY 2008-09 relevant to AY 2009-10. The assessee credited this amount to its profit and loss account and disclosed the same as income. The assessee never claimed any depreciation and never made any addition to the value of this machinery. The assessee filed complete details in respect to this machinery before us and we could not find that the assessee has claimed any depreciation on the same. Accordingly, we are of the view that the lower authorities erred in making addition on wrong premises.- Decided in favour of assessee.
2017 (8) TMI 1367

CENVAT credit - insurance service - Held that: - The insurance coverage has not only covered life of the employees of appellant but also their dependents - Under Factories Act, workmen compensation is provided to the factory workers engaged in the manufacture covering them under insurance. Such a welfare measure having integral connection with the business of appellant, there should not be denial of CENVAT credit of the Service Tax paid to avail insurance service - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
2017 (8) TMI 1366

Monetary limit for filing of the appeal by the department before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Addition on account of bogus purchases - Held that:- , perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material produced before us. We find that the ‘tax effect’ excluding the surcharge in the present appeal stands computed at ₹ 9,24,494/-.
We are of the considered view that for the purpose of considering the amount of ‘tax effect’ as envisaged in CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, dated 10/12/2015, what has to be considered is the amount of tax excluding the amount of surcharge and education cess. Thus we are of the considered view that as the ‘tax effect’ involved in the present appeal is below the monetary ceiling contemplated in the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, dated 10/12/2015, therefore, the appeal of the department is not maintainable.