ASST CIT 19(1), MUMBAI vs. DEEPAK KANWARLAL JAIN, MUMBAI
The appeal stands dismissed in terms of our above order subject to aforesaid verification by Ld
ITA 248/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2012-13
Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.248/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Deepak Kanwarlal Jain Income Tax-19(1) Flat No.B-6, Rock Side Apartment, बनाम/ Room No.203, 2Nd Floor 116, Walkeshwar Road Vs. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road Mumbai-400 006 Mumbai-400 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpj-2057-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :
For Appellant: Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ram Tiwari, Ld. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)
…Ld. AO relied on following case law in support of his arguments: CIT vs. Vasan Publication (P) Ltd 159 ITR 381 (Mad) CIT vs. Buhari Sons (P) Ltd 144 ITR 12 (Mad) Laxmanda Pranchand & Ors VS. Union of India & Ors 234 ITR 261 (M.P.) CIT vs R.J. Trivadi & Sons, 183 ITR 420 (M.P.) Whereas, the Ld. AR pointed out that the above case laws cite by the Ld. A.O. has been thoroughly discussed by the Hon. ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Goenka Diamond and Jewellery Limited, reported in 146 TTJ 68 and after considering the above case laws, passed the order in favour of the assessee. 6.6 The identical issue of allow abili…