Balmukund Acharya v. DCIT

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Larsen & Toubro Finance Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

…ble Supreme Court rendered in Goetz (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT [284 ITR 323] opined that the same could be claimed only by filing the revised return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the same by following the decision of this Tribunal rendered in Balmukund Acharya [310 ITR 310] which was rendered after considering the several judicial pronouncements of higher judicial authorities. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. The Ld. DR contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting relief to the assessee without confronting the same to Ld. AO and moreover, the factual matrix was nowhere examined by Ld. AO. T…

L & T Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

…ble Supreme Court rendered in Goetz (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT [284 ITR 323] opined that the same could be claimed only by filing the revised return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the same by following the decision of this Tribunal rendered in Balmukund Acharya [310 ITR 310] which was rendered after considering the several judicial pronouncements of higher judicial authorities. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. The Ld. DR contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting relief to the assessee without confronting the same to Ld. AO and moreover, the factual matrix was nowhere examined by Ld. AO. T…

L & T Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

…ble Supreme Court rendered in Goetz (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT [284 ITR 323] opined that the same could be claimed only by filing the revised return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the same by following the decision of this Tribunal rendered in Balmukund Acharya [310 ITR 310] which was rendered after considering the several judicial pronouncements of higher judicial authorities. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. The Ld. DR contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting relief to the assessee without confronting the same to Ld. AO and moreover, the factual matrix was nowhere examined by Ld. AO. T…

L & T Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

…ble Supreme Court rendered in Goetz (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT [284 ITR 323] opined that the same could be claimed only by filing the revised return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the same by following the decision of this Tribunal rendered in Balmukund Acharya [310 ITR 310] which was rendered after considering the several judicial pronouncements of higher judicial authorities. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. The Ld. DR contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting relief to the assessee without confronting the same to Ld. AO and moreover, the factual matrix was nowhere examined by Ld. AO. T…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President & Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member ITA No.1081/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 ITA No.4911/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2010-11 ITA No.4784/Mum/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. Addl. CIT Range 8(2) Finance Department, 1st Floor, Mumbai Vs. Terminal 1B, Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 099 PAN : AAECM6285C (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.4675/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITA No.5592/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITA No.5655/Mum/20…

Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President & Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member ITA No.1081/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 ITA No.4911/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2010-11 ITA No.4784/Mum/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. Addl. CIT Range 8(2) Finance Department, 1st Floor, Mumbai Vs. Terminal 1B, Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 099 PAN : AAECM6285C (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.4675/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITA No.5592/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITA No.5655/Mum/20…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President & Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member ITA No.1081/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 ITA No.4911/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2010-11 ITA No.4784/Mum/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. Addl. CIT Range 8(2) Finance Department, 1st Floor, Mumbai Vs. Terminal 1B, Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 099 PAN : AAECM6285C (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.4675/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITA No.5592/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITA No.5655/Mum/20…

Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President & Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member ITA No.1081/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 ITA No.4911/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2010-11 ITA No.4784/Mum/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. Addl. CIT Range 8(2) Finance Department, 1st Floor, Mumbai Vs. Terminal 1B, Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 099 PAN : AAECM6285C (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.4675/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITA No.5592/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITA No.5655/Mum/20…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Internaiotnal Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President & Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member ITA No.1081/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 ITA No.4911/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2010-11 ITA No.4784/Mum/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. Addl. CIT Range 8(2) Finance Department, 1st Floor, Mumbai Vs. Terminal 1B, Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 099 PAN : AAECM6285C (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.4675/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITA No.5592/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITA No.5655/Mum/20…

Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(20, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President & Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member ITA No.1081/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 ITA No.4911/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2010-11 ITA No.4784/Mum/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. Addl. CIT Range 8(2) Finance Department, 1st Floor, Mumbai Vs. Terminal 1B, Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 099 PAN : AAECM6285C (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.4675/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITA No.5592/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITA No.5655/Mum/20…

West Gujarat Expressway Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Gujarat Expressway Circle 14(3)(1) Ltd. 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Circle 14(3)(1) Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Complex, Bandra (E) Marg Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent

…ssessee is not entitled to any deduction. The only issue in dispute is as to under what head/provision the deduction is to be allowed to the assessee. The Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court of Bombay in the case of “Balmukund Acharya vs. DCIT” reported in (2009) 221 CTR 440 (Bom.) has held that the Hon’ble Apex Court and the various High Courts have ruled that the authorities under the Act are under obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If the assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed is over assessed, the authorities under t…

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. West Gujarat Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Gujarat Expressway Circle 14(3)(1) Ltd. 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Circle 14(3)(1) Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Complex, Bandra (E) Marg Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent

…ssessee is not entitled to any deduction. The only issue in dispute is as to under what head/provision the deduction is to be allowed to the assessee. The Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court of Bombay in the case of “Balmukund Acharya vs. DCIT” reported in (2009) 221 CTR 440 (Bom.) has held that the Hon’ble Apex Court and the various High Courts have ruled that the authorities under the Act are under obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If the assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed is over assessed, the authorities under t…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Kaytee Corporation P.Ld, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the revenue is Partly

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

…diture does not pertain to the year under consideration but his only objection is that the assessee has not filed the revised return. The learned CIT(A) placed reliance upon the Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Balmukund Acharya, ITA 217/2001 310 ITR 310. He held that prior period expenses are therefore allowed. Against the above order revenue is in appeal before us. 12. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that Assessing Officer has not accepted the assessee’s claim of prior period expenditure on the basis that assessee has not filed revised return. Nowhere in the ass…

Addl CIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

…the assessee might have offered it for taxation on without prejudice basis. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following judgments: 1. Mayank Poddar (HUF) vs WTO - 262 ITR 633 (Cal) 2. Nirmala L Mehta vsCIT 269 ITR 1 (Bom) 3. Balmukund Acharya vs DCIT 310 ITR 310 (Bom) Lastly, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that in this case the impugned receipt cannot be brought to tax as income in anybody’s hands, as there is no surplus or profit which can be characterised as income. Whatever amount is left at the end of the year, it is already earmarked or deducted for meeting security expenses. There is no discre…

Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

…the assessee might have offered it for taxation on without prejudice basis. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following judgments: 1. Mayank Poddar (HUF) vs WTO - 262 ITR 633 (Cal) 2. Nirmala L Mehta vsCIT 269 ITR 1 (Bom) 3. Balmukund Acharya vs DCIT 310 ITR 310 (Bom) Lastly, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that in this case the impugned receipt cannot be brought to tax as income in anybody’s hands, as there is no surplus or profit which can be characterised as income. Whatever amount is left at the end of the year, it is already earmarked or deducted for meeting security expenses. There is no discre…