INDIA INDEX SERVICES & PRODUCTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14(2)(2), MUMBAI
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed
ITA 6913/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13
Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6913/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) बनधम/ M/S. India Index Services Acit-14(2)(2) Aaykar Bhawan, 4Th Floor & Products Ltd. Vs. Room No.432, M.K. Plot No. C-1, Block G, Road, Mumbai-400020. Exchange Plaza, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci5633A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala Sukh Sagar Syal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 01.09.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Disallowing Rs.74,43,942/- Being Research & Administration Fee Incurred For Strategic Business Planning By Treating The Same As Capital In Nature & The Reasons Assigned For Doing So Are Wrong & Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961 & Rules Made Thereunder. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend And/Or Modify The Above Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)
…124 ITR 1 (SC), (ii) CIT Vs. Carborandum Universal Ltd. (2008) 219 CTR 202 (Madras High Court), (iii) CIT Vs. Praga Tools Ltd. (1986) 157 ITR 282, (iv) DCIT Vs. Reddiff.com India Ltd. 141 TTJ 679 (Mum), (v) Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 112 TTJ 94 (Chandigarh) & CIT Vs. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.(1990) 182 ITR 62. On the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. In view of the arguments advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perusing the record, we noticed that the assess…