R-5 IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on: 12.01.2015 ITA 62/2000 C.I.T. Appellant Through: Mr. Rohit Madan, Adv. versus M/s M.G.F. (India) Ltd. Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. In present case following question of law was framed on 02.08.2000. (i) Whether ITAT was right in holding that insurance premium collected by assessee is not trading receipt? 2. assessee was engaged in business of financing of vehicles. He collected insurance premium from hire of vehicles and got them insured by premium and such surplus was credited to separate account for Assessment 1990-91. amount of 1,53,281/- was sought to be brought to tax by way of addition, in assessment year. Assessing ITA 62/2000 Page 1 Officer invoked Section 41(1) and relied upon judgment of Supreme Court in CIT vs. Sugali Sugar Works Pvt. Ltd. 236 ITR 518. assessee contends that Revenue ought not to have mechanically added amount merely by relying on Section 41(1) and is necessarily obliged to investigate as to whether obligation has ceased in reality. 3. At outset, it is noticed that since total addition itself was 1,53,281/-, tax fact is, therefore, just about 35,000/-. In view of prevailing instruction of CBDT dated 9.02.2011(No. 3/2011) which states that revenue s appeals are maintainable only if tax effect exceeds 10 lakhs, present appeal is not maintainable. said circular has been held to be applicable even in pending appeals. 4. For these reasons, appeal is not maintainable and is consequently dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) R.K.GAUBA (JUDGE) JANUARY 12, 2015 mr ITA 62/2000 Page 2 C.I.T. v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd