ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.

Nulux Engineers, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2073/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2001-02) बिाम/ Nulux Engineers Dcit Cir 20(2) 5-Beach Queen, Mumbai 33- J.P Road, Versova, V. Mumbai-400061 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaafn1423C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Manish Shah Revenue By : Shri. D.G Pansari , Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2073/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 02.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-39, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2001-02, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Order Dated 30.08.2013 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2001-02. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In The Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Tribunal”) Read As Under:-

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2073/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2001-02) बिाम/ Nulux Engineers DCIT CIR 20(2) 5-Beach Queen, Mumbai 33- J.P Road, Versova, v. Mumbai-400061 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN: AAAFN1423C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. Manish Shah Revenue by : Shri. D.G Pansari , DR सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 28.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018 आदेश / O R…

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed in part for statistical purposes, in terms indicated herein above

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm

…should be taken into account. 16. In this regard we observe that a subsequent decision of the Jurisdictional High Court constitutes a mistake apparent from record. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: • ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [305 ITR 227][SC] • CIT vs. Narang International Hotels P. Ltd. [ITA 1316 of 2014][Bom.] 17. It was also argued by the learned D.R. that the AO has rightly given effect to the order of the CIT(A) dated 1st January, 2010 and the appeal against the same does not lie. As per our considered view in the interest of the substantial justice, the CIT(A) ought to hav…

Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singh

…upon the case raised an additional ground.But,the FAA rejected the claim.The above judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court did not make any new law-it rather explained the law.Here,we would like to refer to the matter of Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.(305 ITR 227)the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “42. In our judgment, it is also well-settled that a judicial decision acts retrospectively. According to Blackstonian theory, it is not the function of the court to pronounce a "new rule" but to maintain and expound the "old one". In other words, judges do not make law, they only discover or find the cor…