9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income from business without appreciating the fact that the assessee was involved in frequent trading of shares and no separate books of accounts were maintained. 2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing. It is prayed that the order of the CIT(A), being contrary to the facts on record and the settled position of law, be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored." 3. The department revised the above grounds vide application dated 11.06.2013 for the reason that the figure was wrongly mentioned as Rs. 1,43,154/- in the original ground of appeal instead of correct figure of Rs. 45,35,289/-. 4. During the course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012 vide order dated 22.07.2016 (copy of the aforesaid order was furnished which is placed on record). 6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. It is noticed that on the issue relating to the inclusion of the surcharge and education cess for the determination, the tax effect, the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of DCIT Vs M/s Dome Bell Electronics India Ltd. in ITA No. 2480/Mum/2012 (supra) held as under: "3.2. We have gone through the facts of this case and also gone through the aforesaid circular as well as sub-section (43) of section 2 of the Act which defines word 'tax'. It is noted that the identical issue came up before the Hon'ble Chenna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefit tax payable under Section 115WA]" It is clear that tax, as per the above definition, would include supertax and also fringe benefit tax but not surcharge. Admittedly, here, the tax was only Rs. 2,90,250/- which is below the limit of Rs. 3 lakhs prescribed in the Circular for filing appeals before this Tribunal. Resultantly, we do not find any mistake in the order of this Tribunal much less any mistake apparent on record. 3.3. We have also gone through sub-section (43) of section 2 which defines 'tax'. The perusal of the definition shows that whatever was intended to be included in tax has been mentioned therein. When the legislature has mentioned the words 'supertax' and 'fringe benefit tax', then, it could have also mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ular reads as under: ".......................... ........................... 3. Henceforth, appeals/ SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder: S. No Appeals in Income-tax matter Monetary Limit (in Rs) 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 10,00,000/- 2 Before High Court 20,00,000/- 3 Before Supreme Court 25,00,000/- It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case. .............................. .............................. 9. The monetary limits specified in para 3 above shall not apply to writ matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
