ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI V. ANDROMEDA MARKETING P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 8588/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4419 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SAHU
• Assessee Lawyers: S K MUTSADDI; RITURAJ H GURJARDR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHR I PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.8588/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 A. I.C.T. 10(1), 455, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. MARG, MUMBAI 400020 VS. M/S ANDROMEDIA MARKETING PVT. 23, CREATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, SUNDER NAGAR, KALINA, SANTACRUZ(E), MUMBAI-400098 PAN: AABCA6983E REVENUE BY SHRI R.K. SAHU (AR) ASSESSEE BY SHRI S.K. MUTSADDI & MR. RITURAJ H. GURJAR(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 23.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.01.2016 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT(A)-21 MUMBAI ON THE GROUNDS THAT (I) LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING T HE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 7,71,573/-U/S 14A, AND FURTHER ALLOWING THE BUSINES S EXPENDITURE OF RS. 14,60,572/- AND FURTHER ALLOWING DEPRECIATION @ 60% INSTEAD OF 15% IN RESPECT OF ROUTERS, SWITCHES, AND CABLE. 2. THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS HEARD BY US ON 23.11.2015, A ND WAS RESERVED FOR ORDER, IN THE MEANTIME THE CBDT HAD ISSUED A CIRCULAR NO.21/2015(F.NO.142/2007- ITJ (PT.) DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 RESTRICTING THE MONETARY LIMIT OF 2 ITA NO.8588/MUM/2011 M/S ANDROMEDIA MARKETING PVT. REVENUE FOR FILING APPEAL BEFORE VARIOUS FORUM OF L AW, WHEREIN THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR ABOUT THE TAX EFFECT FOR FILING APPEAL BE FORE THE ITAT MUST BE BELOW OF RS. 10,00,000/-. 3. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENU E, WE HAVE NOTICED THAT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS T HAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF RUPEE TEN LACK AND THE SAME IS COVERED BY THE CEILI NG OF TAX EFFECT, AS PROVIDED IN THE NOTIFICATION MENTIONED ABOVE, HENCE THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 6 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016 SD/- SD/- (N. K. BILLAYA) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICI AL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 06/01/2016 S.K.PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ! / GUARD FILE. ' //TRUE COPY/