DCIT CEN CR 14, MUMBAI V. TWINKLE ENVIRO TECH LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2098/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 79189 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KISHAN VYAS
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E, MUMBAI .., ! , ' , # BEFORE SHRI I.P.BANSAL, JM AND SHRI RAJENDRA, AM ITA NO.2098/MUM/2013 : ASST.YEAR 2004-05 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 14, ROOM NO.1007, 10 TH FLOOR, OLD CGO ANNEXE BLDG., MK ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 M/S. TWINKLE ENVIRO TECH LTD., 317/318, PARVATI INDL. ESTATE, SUNMILL COMPOUND, LOWER PAREL(WEST), MUMBAI 400 013. PAN: AAACT 4038N ( $% / // / APPELLANT) ' ' ' ' / VS. ( ()$%/ RESPONDENT) $% * + * + * + * + /APPELLANT BY :SHRI KISHAN VYAS ()$% * + * + * + * + /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HIRO RAI ' * ,-' / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 17.06.2014 ./0 * ,-' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.06.2014 1 1 1 1 / / / / O R D E R PER I.P.BANSAL (JM) : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. IT IS DI RECTED AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-37, MUMBAI DATED 28/12/2012 FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2004-05. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A R.W. RULE 8D RELYING ON THE DECISION OF GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DCIT WITHOUT APPRECIATING T HE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A ACCORDING TO THE RUL E LAID DOWN FOR THE PURPOSE UNDER THE I.T. RULES, I.E. RULE 8D. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO AMEND AND/ OR TO ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF NEED BE. 3. THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, PRAYS THAT ON THE GROU NDS STATED ABOVE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-37, MUMBAI, MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED. ITA NO.2098/MUM/2013 : ASST.YEAR 2004-05 2 2. AT THE OUTSET IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT IT W AS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961(THE ACT) WAS MADE BY THE AO AT AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,19,726/-. LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS.60,000/-. THEREFORE, HE PLEADED THAT REVENUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS CONTESTING FOR AN ADDITION OF RS.59,726/ - ON WHICH TAX EFFECT IS MUCH LESS THAN RS.3.00 LACS. HE, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT APP EAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF LESS TAX EFFECT. 3. LD. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FACTS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR. 4. IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT IN VIEW OF I NSTRUCTION NO 3/2011, F- NO.279/MISC.142/2007-/ITJ DATED 09/02/2011 ISSUED B Y CBDT. THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL LESS THAN RS.3.00 LACS. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 17 TH JUNE, 2014. 1 * ./0 2'3 17/06/2014 / * : SD/ SD/- (RAJENDRA) (I.P.BANSAL) ' ' ' ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; 2' DATED : 17TH JUNE, 2014. VM. 1 * (,; < ;0, 1 * (,; < ;0, 1 * (,; < ;0, 1 * (,; < ;0,/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $% / THE APPELLANT 2. ()$% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. =() / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. = / CIT(A)-13, MUMBAI 5. ;@: (,' , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. :A B / GUARD FILE. 1' 1' 1' 1' / BY ORDER, );, (, //TRUE COPY// C CC C/ // /D D D D (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI