Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

ITO (TDS) Aayakar Bhavan Rohtak Gannaur, Vs. Veetee Fine Food Ltd. VPO Larsouli Teh. Sonepat
October, 12th 2015
              IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                    DELHI BENCH `H', NEW DELHI


       BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT
     AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                         ITA No. 5534/Del/2012
                              AY: 2009-10

     ITO (TDS)                vs.   Veetee Fine Food Ltd.
     Aayakar Bhavan                 VPO Larsouli Teh.
     Rohtak                         Gannaur, Sonepat

                                    PAN: AAACP 0658 C

      (Appellant)                               (Respondent)

                Appellant by   : Sh. J.P.Chandrekar, Sr.D.R.
                Respondent by : None


                                    ORDER

PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER


     This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 27.8.2012
of Ld.CIT(A), Rohtak pertaining to the Assessment Year 2009-10.


2.   The grounds raised by the Revenue are as under:
     "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A),
     Rohtak has erred in law in deleting the demand of Rs.2,04,966/-
     (1,66,639+38,327) interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act, which was
     created by A.O.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A), Rohtak has erred on law and facts in treating the payment made to COBCOR is not subject to TDS, ignoring the facts that CONCOR is a company incorporated in 1988 under Companies Act whose income is taxable s per the provision of the Act and, therefore, freight payment to CONCOR is subject to TDS u/s 194C of the Act. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal." 1 ITA No.848/Del/2011 Moonigpa Finvest P.Ltd. A.Y. 2002-03 3. None was present on behalf of the assessee. We have heard Shri J.P.Chandrekar, Ld.Sr.D.R. on behalf of the Revenue. On a query from the Bench the Ld.Sr.D.R. vehemently contended that the tax effect in the case on hand is more than the limit prescribed by the CBDT at the time of filing of the appeal and that the fresh Circular of the CBDT clearly mentions that the tax effect limit of Rs.4 lakhs is prospective in nature and hence the limits prescribed in the Circular cannot be applied to appeals filed for the earlier Assessment Years. It was contended that the limit applies to appeals filed after the date of the Circular. 4. After hearing the Ld.Sr.D.R. and perusing the material on record we hold as follows. The Tribunal, in the case of "DCIT vs. Sushila Saraogi (2014) (11) TMI 294" ITAT Kolkata, after considering the precedents on the subject, held that the Instruction no.5/14, issued by the CBDT on 10.7.2014 is applicable to the pending appeals. The Tribunal followed the proposition laid down in the judgements of various High Courts, including the two judgements of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s PS Jain & Co. in ITA 179/1991 dt. 2.8.2010 and in the case of CIT vs. Delhi Race Club Ltd. dt. 3.3.2011. We respectfully follow the Co-Ordinate Bench Order. In the instant cases, as the tax effect being below Rs. 4 lacs, we without going into the issue on merits, dismiss the appeals of the Revenue in limine as not maintainable. It is to be mentioned that the Ld.Sr.DR was unable to point out any exceptional circumstances, mentioned in Board Instruction no.5 of 2014 that have led to filing of this appeal, despite the fact that the monetary limit being below the prescribed limit. 2 ITA No.848/Del/2011 Moonigpa Finvest P.Ltd. A.Y. 2002-03 5. In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 09th October, 2015. Sd/- Sd/- (G.C.GUPTA) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 09th October, 2015 · Manga Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 3
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting