LAVASA CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 11(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3610/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 January 2018AY 2007-084 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeals. The appeals were dismissed in limine as withdrawn, without prejudice to the assessee's right to challenge the principles laid down in future proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee sought to withdraw its appeals for assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11. The reason for withdrawal was significant carried forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation, making it unlikely to utilize future profits.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be allowed to withdraw its appeals due to substantial unutilized losses. The underlying issues involved disallowances under Section 36(1)(iii) and Section 14A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(iii),Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil Lakhani, AR
For Respondent: Mr. Abhijit Patankar, CIT-DR
Hearing: 25/01/2018Pronounced: 29/01/2018

ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai and arise out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the ‘Act’). As common issues are involved, we are Lavasa Corporation 2 3611, 3612, 3613/Mum/2016 proceeding to dispose them off through a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

2.

The assessee has filed a petition seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. The said petition reads as under:

“1. We have incurred significant losses in the assessment years under appeal as well as in the subsequent assessment years. The assessment year-wise break-up of the carried forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation is enclosed in Annexure-

1. 1.

2. The disputed issues and the amounts of additions/disallowance which are involved in the above appeals are summarized below: Sr. No. Assessment Year Issue Amount (in Rs.) 1. 2007-08 Disallowance as per 5,39,69,891 proviso to section 36(1)(iii) 2. 2008-09 Disallowance as per 8,58,90,022 proviso to section 36(1)(iii) (i) Disallowance u/s 14A 148,470 r.w. Rule 8D

3. 2009-10 Disallowance as per 18,01,59,195 proviso to section 36(1)(iii) 4. 2010-11 Disallowance as per 21,38,77,400 proviso to section 36(1)(iii)

3. We believe that we have a strong case to succeed in relation to the aforesaid appeals. However, in view of the cumulative carried forward business losses of Rs.1372 crores and cumulative unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.255 crores, aggregating to Rs.1627 crores, which are not likely to be utilized against profits of future years, we which to withdraw the appeal.

Lavasa Corporation 3 3611, 3612, 3613/Mum/2016 4. Further, the above appeal is being withdrawn purely on account of the above reasons and therefore, the stand taken by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals (CIT-A) for AY 2007-08 to AY 2011-12 in the impugned order dated 18th February, 2016 is not be concluded as being accepted by the assessee company. We reserve our right to challenge the principle sought to be laid down by the CIT and CIT(A) in the aforesaid impugned orders in the appropriate proceedings, if and when the need arises. We will be extremely grateful if the same is clarified in the order passed by the Hon’ble Bench.”

3.

The Ld. counsel of the assessee reiterates the submission made in the petition and accordingly sought permission of the Bench to withdraw the appeal. There was no opposition by the Ld. DR to the above request of the assessee. Since the assessee is only foregoing its right of appeal for the reasons stated in the petition, we allow the appeal to be withdrawn.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)

All 3,665 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →