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 »
 Satish Kumar, Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi – 49 Vs. Ito, Ward 2(3), Faridabad
 Income-tax Officer, Ward 6(1), New Delhi vs. Magic Software Pvt. Ltd., 9th Floor, Tower C, Tech Bouleward, Plot No. 6, Sector 127, Noida.
 Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Sony Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors
 Sh. Lokesh Garg Prop. M/s. Garg Yarn Traders, Railway Road, Pulkhuwa, Distt. Hapur vs. ITO Ward – 3 (4) Hapur
 ITO, Ward – 1(5) Noida vs. Sh. Jagpal Singh S/o Sh. Rishal Singh, Village Jaganpur Afzalpur, Post : Dankaur, Distt : Gautam Budh Nagar
 80 LPA-Opening CFO- Real Estate Developer
 35 LPA-Opening Senior Chartered Accountant
 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. vs. ACIT Circle 1(1) Gurgaon
 Microsoft India (R & D) Pvt. Ltd. 807, New Delhi House, Barakhamba Road New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-16(2), C.R. Building New Delhi
 Cinestaan Entertainment P. Ltd., 203, Siddharth Chambers, Near IIT, Hauz Khas, New Delhi -110016 vs. ITO, Ward – 6 (2), New Delhi

The ITO Ward 19(3)(2), 3rd Floor, Piramal Chamber, Room No.306, Lalbaug, Mumbai 400 012. Vs. Joel Dominic Goveya, 21,Victoria Apartment, 148, St. Alexious Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050
July, 07th 2015
                      MUMBAI BENCHES `J' MUMBAI
      [ .. , Û è  .. è ,  è                         ¢ 


                      . / ITA No. 543/MUM/2014
                       [ [ /Assessment Year 2009-10

     The I TO Ward 19(3)(2),  / Joel Dominic Goveya,
     3 r d Floor, Piramal         21,Victoria Apartment,
     Chamber, Room No.306,        148, St. Alexious Road,
     Lalbaug, Mumbai 400 012.     Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050
     è    . /   . / PAN/GIR No. : ANNPG 3737E

         ( /Appellant)                  ..          (× / Respondent)

     Assessee by            Shri Love Kumar
     Respondent by :        Shri Ajit Shetty
                  / Date of Hearing          : 30/06/2015
               /Date of Pronouncement : 03/07/2015
                                   / O R D E R


      This is an appeal filed by the Revenue and it is directed against order
passed by Ld. CIT(A)-18, Mumbai         dated 19/11/2013 for assessment year
2009-10. Grounds of appeal read as under:

       "(1) "Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law,
      the Learned CIT(A) was right in holding that the date of indexed cost of
      acquisition for computation of Capital gain should be the year in which the
      previous owner acquired the property and not the year in which the assessee
      became the owner.

2.    At the outset it was pointed out by Ld. AR that the tax effect involved in the
present appeal is below Rs.4.00 lacs as the disputed addition is on account of long
term capital gain which a sum of Rs.18.00 lacs, on which the tax effect would be
                                             2                 . / ITA No. 543/MUM/2014
                                                               [ [ /Assessment Year 2009-10

Rs.3.60 lacs. He has submitted a calculation of tax effect, copy of which was given to
Ld. DR. Ld. DR submitted that this appeal was filed when the new CBDT instructions
were not available.     However, Ld. DR did not dispute the tax effect calculation
submitted by Ld. AR.
3.     Vide    CBDT      InstructionNo.5/2014         No.279/MISC.142/2007-ITJ(PT)]
dated 10/07/2014,       the tax effect limit for filing the appeal before the Tribunal
by the Revenue was enhanced from Rs.3.00 lacs to Rs.4.00 lacs.

4.    We have considered the submissions of               both the parties.       However,
according to following decisions of Hon'ble           Jurisdictional High Court, such
notifications issued under section 268A would be applicable                   even to the
appeals filed before issue of the notification if the limit is enhanced:

1. In the case of CIT vs. Smt. Vijaya Kavekar (2013 30 412)                    it
was held as under:

              Section 260A, read with Section 268A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - High
              Court - Appeals to - Tax effect - Whether Instruction No. 3 of 2011, dated 9-
              2-2011, specifying monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs for maintainability of
              appeal before High Court is applicable on pending appeals as well - Held,
              yes - Whether, therefore, where tax effect in revenue's appeals was less
              than Rs. 10 lakhs which was filed even prior to issue of Instruction dated
              9-2-2011, same was to be dismissed being non-maintainable - Held, yes
              [In favour of assessee]

2. In the case of CIT vs. Madhukar Imandar (2009 185 Taxman 101] it was
held as under:

              Section 268A, read with section 119, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appeal
              or application for reference - Filing of, by income-tax authority - Whether
              circular/Income-tax Instruction No. 5 of 2008, dated 15-5-2008 issued by
              CBDT directing income-tax authorities not to file appeals if tax effect is less
              than Rs. 4 lakhs would be applicable to cases pending before High Court
              as on 15-5-2008 either for admission or for final disposal, even though
              said appeals and/or petitions were filed before High Court prior to 15-5-
              2008 - Held, yes
                                       3              . / ITA No. 543/MUM/2014
                                                      [ [ /Assessment Year 2009-10

5.    In this view of the situation, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue
on account of low tax effect as per aforementioned      instruction issued by
      Order pronounced in the open court on 30/06/2015
                      Û   03/07/2015    

                    Sd/-                                          Sd/-
(.. è/B.R.BASKARAN)                            ../I.P.BANSAL)
 è / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                     Û è / JUDICIAL MEMBER
 Mumbai;          Dated 03/07/2015

    /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.  / The Appellant
2.   × / The Respondent.
3.    È() / The CIT(A)-
4.    È / CIT
5.    ,   ,  / DR, ITAT,
6.   [  / Guard file.
                                                 / BY ORDER,
×  //True Copy//
                                           /             (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
                                     ,  / ITAT, Mumbai
.../Vm, Sr. PS
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2019 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - About Us

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