ADDL CIT RG 18(2), MUMBAI V. METRPOLITAN TRADING CO., MUMBAI

ITA 2217/MUM/2011

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai, which had partly allowed the appeal of M/s. Metropolitan Trading Company concerning the Assessment Year 2000-2001. The primary issues in the appeal were the inclusion/exclusion of Business Centre Receipts and Sales Tax Refund while computing the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) had granted relief to the assessee based on previous ITAT decisions, which the Revenue contested, citing non-acceptance of these decisions and challenges before the High Court.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 33069 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 13 year(s) 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2011
• Other Referred Cases: M/s.Dresser Rand India Pvt. Ltd. (323 ITR 429)(Bom)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASSESSEE
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 147; 143(3); 80HHC

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2217/MUM/2011 (Assessment Year: 2000-2001) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 18(2), Mumbai Room No.115, 1st Floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai – 400012, Maharashtra. …………. Appellant M/s. Metropolitan Trading Company 10/76, Dainik Shivner Road, Worli Mumbai – 400018. Maharashtra. [PAN:AAAFM1474C] Vs …………. Respondent Appearance For the Respondent/Department For the Appellant/Assessee : : Ms. Kaveeta Punit Kaushik None Date Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order : : 24.09.2024 28.11.2024 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against the order, dated 10/12/2010, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 29/12/2008, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2000-01. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : ITA No.2217/Mum/2011 Assessment Year 2000-2001 2 “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in directing the A.O. not to exclude 90% of sale tax refund from business profits for calculating the deduction u/s.80HHC without appreciating the fact that the judgement laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s.Dresser Rand India Pvt. Ltd. (323 ITR 429)(Bom) wherein it was held that 90% sale of sale tax refund should be excluded for computing business profit within the meaning of clause (baa) of explanation to section 80HHC of the Act for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s.80HHC of the I.T.Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in directing the A.O. to exclude 90% of business centre receipts from business profit for calculating the deduction u/s.80HHC relying on the findings given by the Hon’ble ITAT in assessee’s own case for A.Y.1998-99 and 2002-03 without appreciating the fact that the Revenue has not accepted the decision of the ITAT and challenged the issue before the Hon’ble High Court” 3. When the Appeal was taken up for hearing none was present on behalf of the Assessee. On examining the issues raised in the appeal and the order passed by the CIT(A), we proceeded to adjudicate the appeal on merits after hearing the Learned Departmental Representative. 4. We note that the CIT(A) had granted relief to the Assessee by following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2002-03 [ITA No.3189/Mum/2006 order, dated 21/09/2009]. 5. We also note that the issue raised in the present appeal pertain to inclusion/exclusion of the Business Centre Receipts and Sales Tax Refund of INR.59,04,330/- and INR.2,11,104/-, respectively, while computing the quantum of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. Therefore, the tax effect involved in the present appeal is well below the enhanced specified threshold of INR 60 Lakhs for filing appeals before the Tribunal introduced vide Circular No. 9 of 2024. The aforesaid circular came into effect from the date of the circular ITA No.2217/Mum/2011 Assessment Year 2000-2001 3 (i.e. from 17/09/2024) and applies to all pending appeal preferred by the Revenue. Accordingly, the present appeal preferred by Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the Revenue to revive the same by way of filing miscellaneous application within prescribed time in case the appeal falls within the ambit of any of the exceptions carved out from the applicability of the aforesaid circular. 6. In result, the present appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 28.11.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (Amarjit Singh) Accountant Member (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 28.11.2024 Milan,LDC ITA No.2217/Mum/2011 Assessment Year 2000-2001 4 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ The CIT 4. Ůधान आयकर आयुƅ / Pr.CIT 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सȑािपत Ůित //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai "