sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 All India Federation of Tax Practitioners vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju (Supreme Court)
 Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT (Supreme Court)
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)
 Cromption Greaves Limited vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Modiluft Ltd.
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Royal Airways Ltd.

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


                         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



     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 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Careers

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions