Hindustan Apparel Industries, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 21(3), Mumbai
In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no
ITA 215/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15
Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.214 & 215/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) बिाम/ Hindustan Apparel Acit 21(3), Industries, Piramal Chambers, Unit No. 4, Lower Parel, Mumbai V. Bradys Glady Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400025 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaafh0455J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Vijay Kumar S. Biyani Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 214 & 215/Mum/2018, Are Directed Against Common Appellate Order Dated 23.10.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-33/Rg.21/260/2016-17 & 846/2016- 17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Assessment Order(S) Dated 03.03.2016 & 28.12.2016 Respectively Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) Both U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax
For Appellant: Shri. Vijay Kumar S. BiyaniFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36
…l, in law, was right in allowing the claim of the Assessee on account of delayed payments of P.F. of employees' contribution amounting to Rs.1,82,77,138/- by relying onthe decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal in law, was right in deleting the disallowance of Rs.10,00,300/- on bond registration charges and allowing the claim of the assessee u/s. 37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?" 13. In that judgment, this Court held that no substantial questions of law would arise since section 4…
