AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (5) TMI 1012
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue and Shri S.S. Deshpande, ld. Counsel for the assessee. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal is below prescribed monetary limit, therefore, straight way, the appeal of the revenue may be dismissed. The ld. Sr. DR fairly admitted that the tax effect is below prescribed monetary limit. 3. We have considered the rival submissions of ld. representatives of both sides and perused the material available on record. Before coming to any conclusion, on the issue of tax effect, the Bench in the case of ACIT vs. M/s. Shriram Nutrients Ltd. in ITA No.123/Ind/2010 (A.Y. - 2002-03) vide order dated 28.10.2010 held as under: "This appeal is by the reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order of the learned CIT(A) dated 26.8.2009 on the ground that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,46,831/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of depreciation on fixed assets and also in directing the Assessing Officer to allow carry forward of brought forward losses of earlier years. 2. During hearing of this appeal, we have heard the learned counsels from both the sides and considered the arguments advanced by them. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised a preliminary objection that since the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit, therefore, the department is not permitted to file this appeal and the same deserves to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red the submissions put-forth by the learned Senior DR and perused the material available on record. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 8,53,871/- on the fixed assets. The learned Assessing Officer based upon the comments of the auditors in the notes to accounts and the nature of the business, disallowed 50% of the depreciation claimed by the assessee which was worked out at Rs. 4,26,936/-. Before the learned first appellate authority the submission of the assessee was that the fixed assets were duly reflected in the balance sheet during the relevant period and there was no new addition in the assets. The depreciation on all the assets was regularly allowed since the date of inclusion in the balance sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The assertion of the assessee was consented to be correct by the ld. Sr. DR. Further, it was pointed out that the tax effect is also below monetary limit, therefore, the appeal of the revenue may be dismissed. The ld. Sr. DR fairly agreed to the submission of the assessee to the extent that the tax effect is below prescribed monetary limit for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. S.No. Authority Monetary limit (In Rs.) 1 ITAT 2,00,000/- 2 Appeal under section 260A before High Court 4,00,000/- 3 Supreme Court 10,00,000/- The Board further clarified the tax effect, which means the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that would have been chargeable, had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses of earlier years without any basis. The contention raised on behalf of the revenue is that in coming to a particular conclusion, no basis has been adduced by the learned first appellate authority and it was rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer in the absence of proof furnished by the assessee. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The stand of the revenue is that proof of last years' losses was not furnished by the assessee consequently these are not allowable whereas before the learned first appellate authority there is a factual finding that in all previous years' returns were duly filed by the assessee and the same were available on record of the Assessing Officer. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pen Court in the presence of both the parties at the conclusion of hearing on 1.12.2009." In the aforesaid case, the Tribunal has passed a detailed order, therefore, without going into the merits of the case and respectfully following the aforesaid decision, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court in the presence of learned representatives of both the sides at the conclusion of hearing on 26th May, 2010." In view of the above, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. representatives of both the sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 28.10.2010." 4. However, the CBDT vide instruction no.3/2011 dated 9.2.2011 revi....