SINDHU RESETTLEMENT CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (OSD) 2(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3156/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 March 2017AY 2009-102 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. During the hearing, the assessee's counsel stated that the Assessing Officer (AO) had granted relief on the issues raised, and therefore the assessee had no further grievance.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO erred in disallowing expenses on account of gifts to shareholders and treating expenditure on construction as capital expenditure.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

For Appellant: Shri R.V. Chaniyari
For Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe, DR
Hearing: 02.03.2017Pronounced: 17.03.2017

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 02.03.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 17.03.2017 आदेश / O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee on 25.4.2013 is against the order of the CIT (A)-6, Mumbai dated 14.2.2013 for the assessment year 2009-10. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in disallowing expenses of Rs. 24,55,900/- u/s 37 of the Act on account of gift to shareholders and increasing the total income accordingly. The Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO. The AO be directed to allow a deduction of Rs. 24,55,900/- incurred on account of gift to shareholders and reduce the total income accordingly.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld AO erred in disallowing expenditure of Rs. 19,11,162/- on account of amount spent for construction of shops and houses under the head “work in progress” treating the same as capital expenditure and allowing depreciation of Rs. 1,91,196/- on Rs. 19,11,162/-. The Ld CIT (A) erred in directing the AO to verify facts and allow deduction of the expenditure accordingly. The AO be directed to delete the addition made to total income of Rs. 19,11,162/- as well as withdraw depreciation of Rs. 1,19,196/- allowed to the appellant company and reduce the total income accordingly.”

2. At the outset, ld Counsel for the assessee briefly narrated the facts of the case and mentioned that since the AO granted relief on the issues raised before the Tribunal, vide the above extracted grounds, therefore assessee has no grievance. Considering the same, assessee desires to withdraw its appeal.

More judgments on Section 37

All 4,334 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →