TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Direct Taxes and the tax effect involved in the case on hand, this Court is not inclined to entertain this appeal. - Decided against revenue. - T.C.A. NO. 1109 OF 2007 - - - Dated:- 17-2-2015 - The Honourable Mr. Justice R.Sudhakar And The Honourable Mr. Justice R.Karuppiah For the Appellant : Mr. J.Narayanaswamy For the Respondent : Mr. Philip George JUDGMENT (DELIVERED BY R.SUDHAKAR, J.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, the Revenue/appellant is before this Court by filing the present appeal. This Court, vide order dated 27.08.2007, while admitting the appeal, framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- i) Whether in the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Vs CIT (2000 (243) ITR 83 (SC)), allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee holding that the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act is bad in law. For better clarity, the relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal is extracted hereinbelow :- 5. The only issue is whether the assessee's work pertains to use of drawing and designing or it is a related work for the construction of Microwave Towers. Even the CIT in his order in para 4.3. (i) has stated that As per these invoices, it has drawn the design as per the requirements of the owners and handed over them for further execution and categorically held that the assessee has drawn the design as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n under Section 80-O. 6. We feel that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer where he has taken a view that the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 80-O is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Even on merits, the assessee is in the business of designing as narrated above and the order of the Assessing Officer is not erroneous. Even otherwise, the twin conditions as enumerated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. - Vs CIT (2000 (243) ITR 83 (SC)) have not been satisfied. In view of the facts and circumstances, we feel that reviewing under Section 263 by the CIT is bade in law and the same is quashed. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction No.2 of 2005, dated 24.10.2005 read with Instruction No.5 of 2007, dated 16.7.2007. 7. In the case on hand, the tax liability pertains to the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of tower testing activities, which were characterized as 'design'. The preliminary objection of the assessee and the tax liability under the above heads is as under: Preliminary objection on maintainability of Department's Tax Case Appeal: Instruction No.1979 dated 27.03.2000 read with Instruction No.2 of 2005 dated 24.10.2005 fixed the monetary limit to prefer a Tax Case Appeal only if the tax effect exceeds ₹ 4 Lakhs for each case taken singly, i.e., in group cases, each case should individually satisfy the monetary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect in the present case is less than ₹ 4 Lakhs and that the assessee's case does not fall within the exceptions specified in Instruction No.1979, dated 27.3.2000. 10. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in an earlier decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem Vs Dr. C.T.Kiruba (T.C. (A) Nos.1011 1012 of 2007 dated 19.1.2015), in similar set of facts, this Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Department as not maintainable. 11. Considering the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the tax effect involved in the case on hand, this Court is not inclined to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the questions of law formulated and in the light of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
