{"id":64209,"date":"2026-08-28T16:30:56","date_gmt":"2026-08-28T11:00:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-v-milestone-real-estate-fund-2026-308-taxman-560-bom-hc\/"},"modified":"2026-08-28T16:30:56","modified_gmt":"2026-08-28T11:00:56","slug":"pcit-v-milestone-real-estate-fund-2026-308-taxman-560-bom-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-v-milestone-real-estate-fund-2026-308-taxman-560-bom-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"PCIT v. Milestone Real Estate Fund (2026) 308 Taxman 560 (Bom.)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Assessee was a venture capital fund which was registered with SEBI. It floated various schemes with a focus on investing primarily in entities engaged in the real estate sector. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer held that most of the expenditure incurred by assessee was not allowable under section 57(iii) since the income offered to tax was under section 56 (income from other sources). Accordingly, he disallowed entire expenditure claimed by assessee\u00a0 On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) called for remand report from Assessing Officer who stated that on a detailed verification he found that a major part of expenses would be allowable as per provisions of section 57(iii). However, he raised a doubt in relation to expenses of Rs. 2.35 crores. Thereafter, the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the entire disallowance, including the disallowance of Rs. 2.35 crores. Tribunal also confirmed the order of the CIT(A).On appeal, the court held that since the tax effect in this appeal was below the monetary threshold limit of Rs. 2 crores as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024, dated 17-9-2024, the appeal was dismissed for low tax effect. (AY. 2009-10)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>\nS. 268A : Appeal-Instructions-Circulars-Monetary limits-Income from other sources-Deductions-Tax effect was below the monetary threshold limit of Rs. 2 crores as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024, dated 17-9-2024, appeal was to be dismissed for low tax effect. [S.56, 57(iii), 260A] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-64209","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-gHD","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64209","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=64209"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64209\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":64210,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64209\/revisions\/64210"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64209"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64209"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64209"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}