SUN TAN TRADING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 1(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1962/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 September 2016AY 2010-113 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 assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as the issue had been resolved in a subsequent assessment year. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal application.

What were the facts?

The assessee had deposited Rs. 60 crores as an advance with the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The assessee claimed this amount as an allowable expense in the year of payment, not the year of demand. The Assessing Officer allowed the claim in Assessment Year 2012-13.

What were the issues?

Whether the advance payment to DRI was an allowable expenditure and in which assessment year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri. Atul H.Mehta
Hearing: 29/09/2016Pronounced: 29/09/2016

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 24/10/2013 passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-2 Mumbai for the Asst. Year 2010- 11, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted an application duly signed by Shri. N.T. Kilachand, Managing Director, seeking permission to withdraw the present appeal, the relevant portion of which reads as under:-

“The appellant had deposited Rs. 60 crores as advance on without prejudice basis with the Directorate of Revenue intelligence (DRI). The appellant had claimed the said amount of Rs. 60 crores to be allowed in the event a view is taken by the Tax Department that the said amount so demanded is not allowable in the in which demand is raised, but in the year of payment.

The Assessing Officer has completed the Assessment Year 2012-13 allowing claim of the Appellant in the said year for the amount paid as per settlement commission order.”

3.

The Ld. DR did not have any objection in allowing the application for withdrawal of the appeal.

4.

In view of the written submission made by the appellant, the application is allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdraw.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →