2015 (8) TMI 767 - HC - Income Tax

Depreciation and investment allowance on the plant and machinery - Whether the Tribunal justified directing AO to allow allowances when the Assessee had not carried out any manufacturing activity during the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 1985-86? - whether Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of Sec. 37(3A) are not applicable to the expenses incurred on repairs and taxes of Motor Cars? - Held that - It is an undisputed position that the disputed claim in the appeal is valued at ₹ 9.88 lacs therefore follows that the tax effect in the present appeal is less than ₹ 10 lacs. This Court in CIT Vs. Vijaya Kavekar 2013 (2) TMI 451 - Bombay High Court while dealing with appeals filed by the revenue dismissed a pending appeal having low tax effect i.e. less than ₹ 10 lacs by pacing reliance upon Central Board of Direct Taxes (the CBDT ) Instruction NO.3/2011. This Court held that the circular/instruction issued by CBDT would apply to pending appeals. The questions which arise for our consideration in the present appeal would not give rise to any cascading effect - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order dated 27 June 2001 for Assessment Year 1985-86 under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Substantial questions of law regarding depreciation, investment allowance, and expenses on repairs and taxes.
3. Application of CBDT instructions regarding low tax effect appeals.
4. Cascading effect of questions raised in the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenges the order for the Assessment Year 1985-86 under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The substantial questions of law raised include whether depreciation and investment allowance should be allowed on plant and machinery despite no manufacturing activity during the relevant year, and whether Sec. 37(3A) applies to expenses on repairs and taxes of Motor Cars.

2. The court notes that the disputed claim is valued at Rs. 9.88 lacs, indicating a tax effect of less than Rs. 10 lacs. Referring to a previous case, the court highlights the CBDT Instruction NO.3/2011, which directs dismissing appeals with low tax effect. Subsequently, Instruction No.5/2014 reinforces this stance, stating that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lacs should not be filed unless falling within an exclusion clause. The court finds the present appeal does not meet the exclusion criteria and decides to dismiss it.

3. Despite arguments for a cascading effect by the revenue's counsel, the court determines that the questions raised do not lead to such an effect. The issues of depreciation, investment allowance, and expenses on repairs and taxes are deemed independent and not interlinked across assessment years. Therefore, the court leaves the substantial questions of law open for future consideration in a suitable case.

4. Ultimately, due to the tax effect being less than Rs. 10 lacs, the court dismisses the appeal without costs. The decision is based on the CBDT instructions and the lack of cascading effects from the questions raised, emphasizing the independent nature of the issues regarding depreciation, investment allowance, and expenses on repairs and taxes.