9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1997-98, the assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 3,43,116 as expenditure incurred towards rent/insurance/repairs in respect of guest/ transit house. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same on the ground that the provisions of section 37(2A) is very specific which disallow any expenditure incurred on the maintenance of a residential accommodation in the nature of the guest house and brought the same to tax. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal relying on the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal wherein it has been held that the guest house expenses with observation that embargo imposed by section 37(3) applies to the items mentioned in sub-section (1) thereof and not to the expenses claimed under sections 30 and 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith certain exceptions. The exceptions are not applicable to the facts of the present case and admittedly, the tax effect in this case is lesser than the monetary limit prescribed in the said circular. Hence, it would not be proper on the part of the Revenue to file an appeal, which is against its own circular. It may be noted that this court considered a similar issue in the case of CIT v. Associated Electrical Agencies [2007] 295 ITR 496 (Mad), wherein this court held as follows (page 500) : " We are of the considered view that none of the exceptions stated in the circular are applicable to the facts of the present case. The circular was stated to be issued by invoking the statutory power under section 119 of the Income-tax Act. The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this court in the case of Associated Electrical Agencies [2007] 295 ITR 496 has been relied by the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Concord Pharmaceuticals [2008] 220 CTR 117 ; [2009] 317 ITR 395 to reject the appeal of the Revenue where the tax effect is less than Rs. 2 lakhs. The apex court in the case of State of Kerala v. Kurian Abraham P. Ltd. [2008] 303 ITR 284 (SC) ; [2008] 3 SCC 582 has laid down that the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes is as much binding on the Revenue and that requires no support of judicial precedent. Learned counsel for the Revenue fairly admitted that the tax effect is less than the monetary limit prescribed under the abovesaid circular dated March 27, 2000. The appeal is filed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
