2015 (3) TMI 63 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - income from the nature of business activities as shown by the assessee, was not eligible for deduction under Section 80-O - Tribunal set aside the revision made by CIT u/s 263 as bad in law allowing the deduction under Section 80(O) in respect of tower testing activity, etc - Held that - The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue is not disputing the fact that the tax effect in the present case is less than ₹ 4 Lakhs and that the assessee's case does not fall within the exceptions specified in Instruction No.1979, dated 27.3.2000. Thus considering the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the tax effect involved in the case on hand, this Court is not inclined to entertain this appeal. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Tribunal's decision on revision made by CIT under Section 263
2. Tribunal's decision on deduction under Section 80-O for tower testing activities

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellant challenging the Tribunal's decision that the revision made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under Section 263 was incorrect. The respondent, engaged in designing and transmission of microwave towers, claimed deductions under Section 80-O for tower testing activities. The CIT revised the assessment, disallowing the deduction under Section 80-O. The Tribunal, citing a previous decision, held in favor of the assessee, stating that the work done by the assessee falls under the definition of 'design' for claiming the deduction under Section 80-O. The Tribunal found that the CIT's order under Section 263 was erroneous as the assessee's work qualified for the deduction. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the CIT's revision was unwarranted as the assessing officer's decision was not erroneous.

2. The second issue pertained to the deduction under Section 80-O for tower testing activities. The appellant argued that the tax effect did not exceed the limit for filing an appeal as per the Central Board of Direct Taxes instructions. The appellant contended that the case did not fall within the exceptions specified in the instructions for contesting adverse judgments. The High Court noted that the tax effect was below the threshold for filing an appeal and that the case did not meet the exceptions in the instructions. Citing a previous case, the Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable based on the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the tax effect involved, without delving into the merits of the questions of law.