9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the Revenue by the ITAT order in the case of Living Stones Jewellery (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT , which the CIT(A) followed - Hence, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. - ITA No. 2165/Mum/2010, - - - Dated:- 12-4-2011 - R.V. Easwar, B. Ramakotaiah, JJ. Shravan Kumar for the Appellant K.A. Vaidyalingan for the Respondent ORDER B. Ramakotaiah, Accountant Member 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5/- during year under consideration. In the P and L Account of the assessee the above amounts are credited and debited, respectively. The A.O. was of the opinion that interest earned on fixed deposit has to be treated as income from other sources. It was assessee's contention that the interest earned has a link with the interest paid and the deposit was made out of borrowed funds only for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per the new monitory limit. It was further submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Madhukar K. Inamdar (HUF) 318 ITR 149 considered the maintainability of the appeals on small tax basis and held that CBDT circular issued later would be applicable to all the appeals pending in appellate forums and, therefore, relying on the CBDT instruction No. 5 of 2008 the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. We have considered the issue. There is no doubt that the tax effect in this case if only ₹ 2,07,512/-. As per Instruction No. 3 of 2011 dated 09.02.2011 appeal before appellate Tribunal can be filed where the tax effect exceeds the monitory limit of ₹ 3,00,000/-. However, considering the similar situation where tax limits were modified by the CBDT Instruction No. 5 of 2008 the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
