348 ITR 299 (SC) ACIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd.

Concorde Motors (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD) 2(1), Mumbai

Bench: S/Sh.Joginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./234/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2003-04 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Concorde Motors (India) Ltd. The Acit, Circle-(Osd)-2(1) 3Rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 16, Homi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 001. Pan:Aaacm 0154 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ganesh Bare-Dr Assessee By: Shri Farrokh V.Irani-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.05.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt. 04.10.2012 Of Cit(A)-4,Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Servicing & Maintenance Of Vehicles, Filed Its Return Of Income 05.01.2006, Declaring Total Income At Nil .The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Was Passed On 3.12.2008,Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.58,53, 770/-.

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “सी मुंबई सी सी ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ सी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “ C ”Bench Mumbai सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/Sh.Joginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./234/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2003-04 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Concorde Motors (India) Ltd. The ACIT, circle-(OSD)-2(1) 3rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 16, Homi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mody Street, Hutatma C…

DCIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Shreya Life Scinida P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the ground of reopening is decided in favour of assessee, whereas ground of treating the non compete fee as revenue expenditure is decided in favour of Revenue

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7071/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2002-03) Acit, Cc-44, Mumbai. Vs. Shreya Life Science Pvt. Ltd. Shreya House, 301-A, Pareira Hill Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 9890 C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind (Dr) ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satish R Mody सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14/01/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), For The Assessment Year 2002-03, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147-13A Of The I.T. Act. 2. Following Grounds Taken By The Revenue :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law In Holding That The Notice Issued U/S.147 Is Bad In Law & Reassessment Made Is Invalid Without Appreciating The Fact That The Ao Had Not Discussed This Issue At All In His Original Assessment Order. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.2.50 Cr. Being 1/4Th Of Rs.10 Cr. Paid To M/S Rallies India Ltd As Non-Compete Fees Treated By The Ao As Capital Expenditure Without Appreciating The Facts Brought On Record By The Ao. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of Cit(A) On The Above Grounds Be Set Aside & That Of Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

…) (iii) ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (iv) CIT vs. Holck Larsen 85 ITR 467 (Bom) (v) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del.) (vi) N.C. Gupta vs. ACIT (2004) 90 ITD 768 (Del.) (vii) Sanghvi Swiss Refills P. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2006) 300 ITR 276 (Bom.) 6. By the impugned order, the CIT(A) held the reopening as invalid by observing that there was mere change of opinion. Precise observation of ld. CIT(A) was as under:- The information on record is carefully examined. The crux of the matter is whether the issue of non compete fee was examined by the AO during the original assessment proceed…