ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Lachhmandas U Talreja (HUF), Mumbai
In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 7644/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2016AY 2004-05
Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.7644 & 7645/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06) Ito-14(2)-3, Lachhmandas U Talreja (Huf) बनाम/ Earnest House, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 282, Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaahl 0990 E (राज"व/ Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.6581 & 6582/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06) Lachhmandas U Talreja (Huf) Ito-14(2)-3, बनाम/ Earnest House, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 282, Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaahl 0990 E ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व/ Revenue) : राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidya "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Deepak Tralshwala सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 18.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 11.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is A Set Of Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, For Two Consecutive Years, Being Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2004-05 & 2005-06, Preferred U/S. 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter). The Issues Arising Being (A.Ys. 2004-05 & 2005-06) Lachhmandas U Talreja (Huf) Common, The Same Were Listed For Hearing & Were Accordingly Heard Together – The Facts & Circumstances As Well As The Respective Cases Of The Parties Being Also The Same & Are Being Disposed Of Vide A Common, Consolidated Order.
For Appellant: Shri Deepak TralshwalaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidya
Section 131Section 133ASection 147Section 253
…ving travelled outside the scope of the appeal, we may advert to the decisions, inter alia, in the case of Kapurchand (A.Ys. 2004-05 & 2005-06) Lachhmandas U Talreja (HUF) Shrimal v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451 (SC) and Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB). We decide accordingly. 8. In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on July 11, 2016 (Pawan Singh) (Sanjay Arora) "या"यक सद"य / Judicial Member लेखा सद"य / Accountant Mem…