ACIT LTU, MUMBAI V. RUBY MACONS LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 6005/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1332 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.6005/M/2009 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R S PADVEKAR, JM & SHRI B RAMAKOTAIAH, AM ITA NO. 6005/MUM/2009 (ASST YEAR 2006-07) THE ASST COMMR.OF INCOME TAX LTU, MUMBAI VS RUBY MACONS LTD A/203-204 ANGELIA APTS SAROJINI ROAD, VILE PARLE (W) MUMBAI 56 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN AAACR1939A ASSESSEE BY: SHRI HERO RAI REVENUE BY: SHRI NARESH KU MAR BALODIA O R D E R PER R S PADVEKAR: IN THIS APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT HAS CHALLENGED THE I MPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A)- LTU FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 DATE D 10.8.2009 2 THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL TAX IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE BEFORE US. 3 THE CBDT HAS ISSUED A LATEST CIRCULAR BEING NO.F 279/MIS.142/2007- ITJ DATED 15.5.2008 IN WHICH A REFERENCE OF THE INS TRUCTIONS/CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE BOARD FROM TIME TO TIME IS GIVEN AND IT IS D IRECTED THAT NO APPEAL SHOULD BE FILED IN THE TRIBUNAL WHERE THE TAX EFFEC T IS LESS THAN RS. 2 LACS. IN THE SAID CIRCULAR, EXPRESSION TAX EFFECT HAS B EEN EXPLAINED AND THE TAX DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY INTEREST ELEMENT. 4 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PITHWA ENGINEER LTD (276 IT R 519) AND IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ZOEB Y. TOPIWALA( 284 ITR 379), THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE INSTRUCTIONS/CIRCULARS ISS UED BY THE CBDT AND IT IS HELD THAT CIRCULARS/INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE B OARD ARE BINDING ON THE 2 ITA NO.6005/M/2009 TAX AUTHORITIES AND IF THE TAX/REVENUE EFFECT IS BELOW THE MONITORY LIMIT FIXED BY THE BOARD, THEN THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAI NABLE. 5 AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS TH AN RS. 2 LACS AND HENCE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE APPEAL FI LED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE; ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 6 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 25 TH , DAY OF JUNE 2010. SD/- SD/- (B RAMAKOTAIAH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (R S PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI : DATED: 25 TH , JUNE 2010 RAJ* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR, ITAT, MUMBAI