Quadron Business Park Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 36, Mumbai
In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed
ITA 4857/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2017AY 2010-11
Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4857/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Quadron Business Part Ltd. Dy. Cit, C.C.36, Plot No.28, Midc, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बनाम/ Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Hinjewadi, Phase-Ii, Pune, "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaeca 9058 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Sharma/ Shri Dhruv Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhijit Patankar
For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Sharma/For Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar
Section 80Section 80I
…uch income. In this regard, reliance was placed by the assessee on the following judicial pronouncements:- • CIT v. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. 247ITR 114 (Del) • CIT & EPT v. South India Pictures Ltd. 29 JTR 910 (SC) • CITv.Balaji Chitra Mandir 154 ITR 777(AP) 8. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation furnished on behalf of the assessee. As regards the nature of the receipt, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the forfeiture of security deposit was not in the nature of rent. For this according to the Assessing Officer, firstly the Lease Agreement provided 7…
