V K JEWELLERY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3145/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 September 2024AY 2012-13Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn because it was a duplicate appeal that had already been disposed of by the same bench. The assessee intended to withdraw this appeal on this ground.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal challenging the CIT(A)'s order concerning assessment year 2012-13. The assessee raised grounds regarding the disallowance of deduction u/s 10AA on unrealized export proceeds. Subsequently, the assessee filed an application to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 10AA on unrealized export proceeds? Whether the appeal is a duplicate and should be withdrawn?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10AA,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K (SMC

For Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar
Hearing: 25.09.2024Pronounced: 25.09.2024

(Assessment Year: 2012-13) V K Jewellery DCIT, Circle 17(1) 7/57, 4th Floor, A Wing, Kautilya Bhawan, Avenue 3, Near Nagindas Mension CHS Ltd. Vs. Videsh Bhavan, G Block BKC, JSS Marg, Mumbai-400 004 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400 051 PAN/GIR No. AAFFC 7876 A (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee by : None Respondent by : Shri Kiran Unavekar Date of Hearing : 25.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short),National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2012-13.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. On facts and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer by not allowing deduction u/s. 10AA on a sum of Rs.1,67,64,253/- being unrealized export proceeds.

2. Without prejudice to the above, on facts and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have directed the learned Assessing Officer to restrict the deduction u/s. 10AA on unrealized export proceeds of Rs.1,53,792/- as against Rs.1,67,64,253/- confirmed in the appellate order.

3.

The assessee had filed an application for withdrawal of the said appeal dated 27.08.2024 stating that the assessee’s appeal in has already been disposed of by the SMC Bench and by oversight this duplicate appeal had also been this ground. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.09.2024.

More judgments on Section 10AA

All 857 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10AA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →