Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link:
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft
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
Popular Search: VAT RATES :: empanelment :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: due date for vat payment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: VAT Audit :: form 3cd :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: TDS :: cpt
From the Courts »
 Samvardhana Motherson International Ltd. (Formerly Known As(M/s Samvardhana Motherson Finance Ltd.)a Vs. Assitant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 22(1) & Anr.
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 Vs. M/s Frontline Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
 Ram Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-64(2) & Anr.
 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 Vs. St Microelectronics Private Ltd.
  The Chamber Of Tax Consultants vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)
 M/s Ess Distribution (Mauritius) S.N.C.Et Compagnie Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -1(2)(2) International Taxation, New Delhi
 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ltu) Vs. ESPN Software India Ltd.
 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,
 ITO vs. Gymkhana Club (ITAT Chandigarh)
 SRD Nutrients Private Limited vs. CCE (Supreme Court)
 The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Exemption Vs. The Fertilizers Association Of India

A C I T - 19(3) Mathru Mandir Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400007 Vs. M/s. Vishal Diamonds 100A - Panchratna,Opera House, Mumbai 400004
September, 28th 2015
                    "SMC" Bench, Mumbai

            Before Shri D. Manmohan, Vice President

                ITA Nos. 4543 & 4547/Mum/2015
               (Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2011-12)

A C I T - 19(3)                  M/s. Vishal Diamonds
Mathru Mandir                Vs. 100A - Panchratna,
Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400007       Opera House, Mumbai 400004
                      PAN - AACFV0161D
           Appellant                      Respondent

                   Appellant by:  Shri Vishwas Jadhav
                   Respondent by: None

                   Date of Hearing:       24.09.2015
                   Date of Pronouncement: 24.09.2015


Per D. Manmohan, V.P.

     These two appeals are filed at the instance of the Revenue and
they pertain to assessment years 2007-08 and 2011-12.

2.    None appeared on behalf of the assessee. The learned D.R.
submitted that the AO made an addition of `29,290/- in A.Y. 2007-08
and `1,22,096/- in A.Y. 2011-12 by estimating 20% of the purchase
as bogus and also disallowed the entire purchase cost whereas the
learned CIT(A) observed that the payments are made by account
payee cheques and therefore he directed the AO to disallow 12.5% of
the purchases made in respective years. The learned D.R. admitted
that the tax effect in each year is less than `1,00,000/-

3.    It is well settled, as per the CBDT Instruction No.5/2014 dated
10.07.2014, that the Revenue should not prefer an appeal if the tax
effect is below `4,00,000/- unless there are justifiable reasons which
are recorded in the authorisation memo. The learned D.R. admitted
that there is no such reason recorded in the instant case.
                                      2       ITA Nos. 4543 & 4347/Mum/2015
                                                         M/s. Vishal Diamonds

4.        Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I am of the
view that the appeals filed by the Revenue deserve to be dismissed
on the ground that the tax effect involved in each case is less than
`4,00,000/- and hence the appeals filed are in contravention to the
mandatory instruction issued by the CBDT, which is binding upon the

5.        In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24th September, 2015.

                                                (D. Manmohan)
                                                 Vice President

Mumbai, Dated: 24th September, 2015

Copy to:

     1.   The   Appellant
     2.   The   Respondent
     3.   The   CIT(A) ­ 29, Mumbai
     4.   The   CIT­ 18, Mumbai City
     5.   The   DR, "SMC" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai

                                                          By Order

//True Copy//
                                                  Assistant Registrar
                                          ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Customer relationship management software CRM software Operational CRM Collaborative CRM

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