CIT v. Arts & Craft Exports (246 CTR 463)

TANGAR EXPORTS LLP,RANIPET vs. ADIT , CPC , BANGALORE / ACIT, VELLORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 666/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 666/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tangar Exports Llp, Adit, No. 3 (Old No. 2A/4), Railway V. Cpc, Bengaluru, Station Road, Acit, Vellore. Ranipet – 632 401. [Pan: Aaift-3781-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. A. Mahesh, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 234CSection 80J

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 666/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 TANGAR Exports LLP, ADIT, No. 3 (Old No. 2A/4), Railway v. CPC, Bengaluru, Station Road, ACIT, Vellore. Ranipet – 632 401. [PAN: AAIFT-3781-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. A. Mahesh, CA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT स…

SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 867/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.867/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) M/S. Savita Oil बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-47 Technologies Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Road, Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs7934A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiro Rai Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-38, Mumbai Dated 21.11.2013 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice 2. That The Following Grounds Raised By The Assessee Is Neither Being Pressed Nor Does They Survive For The Reasons Given Therein As Under: - “(I) Ground.4- Disallowance U/S 14A In View Of Order Giving Effect To Cit(A) Order & Order U/S 154, Not Pressed Qua Balance Disallowance Of Rs.7,74,722/- (Ii) Ground No. 5 Disallowance As Capital Expenditure Since Depreciation (Ground No.6) Allowed, Not Pressed. (Iii) Ground No. 6 – Allowance Of Depreciation In Order U/S 154, Ao Has Allowed Depreciation. Hence, Does Not Survive.

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 158BSection 80Section 801ASection 80I

…awn, the Income tax Officer could not have withheld the relief for the subsequent years.” 11. According to the Ld. Counsel, the same view has been reiterated in CIT v Western Outdoor Interactive P Ltd [349 ITR 309] (Bom), and in CIT v Arts and Crafts Exports 246 CTR 463(Bom). Further, reliance was placed upon the principle of consistency. In this regard, it was submitted that having taken a consistent view right from AY 1999- 2000 and onwards as has been brought out above, the present AO could not have turned around and say that AY 1998-99 is the first year of manufacture/production. In this regard, reliance was…

ACIT CIRCLE-16(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S FARAH KHAN, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4428/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice Shri P. P. Bhatt & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4428/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit-Circle-16(1), Ms. Farah Khan R. No. 439, 4Th Floor बिाम/ A-3501/3601 Oberoi Sky Heights Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road Lokhandwala Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Andheri West, Mumbai-400 053 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aadpk-0664-P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Dr. Shanteshwar Swami, Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Chetan Karia, Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 29/06/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 29/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Shanteshwar Swami, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…ons of the Act, then without withdrawing or setting aside the relief granted for the first AY in which claim was made and accepted, the AO cannot withdraw the relief for subsequent assessment years. Similar was the ratio in CIT v. Arts & Crafts Exports (2012) 246 CTR 463 (Bom); CIT v. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom), Direct Information (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2011) 203 Taxman 70 (Bom) which had taken the same view. Finally, the impugned additions / disallowances were deleted. Aggrieved as aforesaid the revenue is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 6. As is evident from record, the assessee…

ASST CIT 15(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. KRYSTAL COLLOIDS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3170/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Krystal Colloids Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax 15(2)(1) Room Vs. 119, Purusharth Bldg., Nawroji No. 357, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Hill Road, No. 2, Dongri, Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Mumbai, 400009. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacck5409J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Anoop Hiwase, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala, Ar Date Of Hearing : 07/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Anoop Hiwase, DR

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 47

…first AY in which claim was made and accepted, the AO cannot withdraw the relief for subsequent assessment years. This ratio was laid down in the context of section 80A of the Act. Subsequently, similar issue was upheld in CIT v. Arts & Crafts Exports (2012) 246 CTR 463 (Bom). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Communication Internet Services Ltd. (2012) 204 Taxman 606 (Del) has held that bar as provided u/s 80IA(3) is to be considered only for the M/s Krystal Colloids Pvt. Ltd. years. In that case, the AO had raised the issue of splitting up or reconstruction of already existing business in…

ACIT CIR 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA CHEMICAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed is dismissed

ITA 5650/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Circle-2(3)(1), M/S Tata Chemical Ltd. R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Bombay House, 24, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabct4059M Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. S. Padmaja, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Atul T. Suraiya, Ar Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Atul T. Suraiya, ARFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80I

…first AY in which claim was made and accepted, the AO cannot withdraw the relief for subsequent assessment years. This ratio was laid down in the context of section 80A of the Act. Subsequently, similar issue was upheld in CIT v. Arts & Crafts Exports (2012) 246 CTR 463 (Bom). M/s Tata Chemical Ltd. 8 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Communication Internet Services Ltd. (2012) 204 Taxman 606 (Del) has held that bar as provided u/s 80IA(3) is to be considered only for the first year of a claim for deduction u/s 80IA and not in the subsequent years. In that case, the AO had raised the issue…

ITO 8(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. VAMAN REALTORS P.TLD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3026/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito-8(3)(4) M/S Vaman Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor, (Now Known As Atul Resorts & Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Hospitality India Pvt. Ltd. 400020. Mumbai) 501-503, Trade Avenue, 5Th Floor, Suren Road, Off Western Express Highway, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccv9048G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Vijay Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing : 23/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.06.2018

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…first AY in which claim was made and accepted, the AO cannot withdraw the relief for subsequent assessment years. This ratio was laid down in the context of section 80A of the Act. Subsequently, similar issue was upheld in CIT v. Arts & Crafts Exports (2012) 246 CTR 463 (Bom). M/s Vaman Realtors Pvt. Ltd. 8 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Communication Internet Services Ltd. (2012) 204 Taxman 606 (Del) has held that bar as provided u/s 80IA(3) is to be considered only for the first year of a claim for deduction u/s 80IA and not in the subsequent years. In that case, the AO had raised the…