CIT v. Associated Cables P. Ltd.

DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Commtel Networks P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year : 2013-14 The Dy Cit- 14(1)(2), M/S. Commtel Networks Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 23, White Castle, Vs. 34-35, Union Park, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071. Pan Aaacc8966G (Appellant) (Respondent)

…money without appreciating the fact that said receipt did not accrue to the assessee during the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Associated Cables (P) Ltd. (286 ITR 596). It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made similar additions in assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 and the learned CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer by following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Associated Cables (P) Ltd. (supra). The CIT(A) after consider…

DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Commtel Networks P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

…consideration and no contractual money was retained by its customers." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Associated Capsules P Ltd.286 ITR 596(BOM) in which the money was retained and hence the facts of the case are clearly distinguishable." 3. "The appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of appeal." 4. "The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set-aside…

ITO 29(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Nathpa Jhakari Joint Venture, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Ito 29 (2)(4) Vs. M/S.Nathpa Jhakari Joint Building No.C-10, R.No.205 Venture It Office, Hincon House, Pratyakshkar Bhavana Lbs Marg Bkc, Bandra (E) Vikhroli (W) Mumbai – 400 011 Mumbai – 400 083 Pan/Gir No. Aaaan1127C Appellant) .. Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H ”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM ITO 29 (2)(4) Vs. M/s.Nathpa Jhakari Joint Building No.C-10, R.No.205 Venture IT Office, Hincon House, Pratyakshkar Bhavana LBS Marg BKC, Bandra (E) Vikhroli (W) Mumbai – 400 011 Mumbai – 400 083 PAN/GIR No. AAAAN1127C Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue by Shri K.S.Rajendra Kumar Assessee by Shri H.P. Mahajani Date of Hearing 17/04/2018 Date of Pronouncement 31/05/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)- 40, dated 03/03/2016 for A…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Paresh Construction & Foundations P.Ltd, Mumbai

…ided in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Income Tax Appeal No.1381 of 2012,dated 5/3/2014,for the earlier assessment year.In its order, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has referred to the case of Associated Cables Ltd., 286 ITR 596 (Bom.) decided on 7/8/2006.We are reproducing the relevant portion of the judgment and the same reads as under:- “6.We have carefully considered orders of authorities below, submission of Ld. Representatives of parties and the cases relied upon by Ld. CIT(A). We agree with Ld. CIT(A) that the amount retained by contractee to ensure proper perform…

M/S. Avrora (India) Marine Systems Pvt.Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ITO., Cir.-10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Years: 2007-08 M/S. Avrora (India) Marine The Income Tax Officer, Circle Systems Pvt. Ltd. 10(3)(4) 1201/1202, Great Eastern Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Summit, ‘B’Wing, Plot No.66, Maharshi Karve Marg, Sector-15, Cbd Belapur, Churchgate, Mumbai 400614 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadca1502D (Appellant) (Respondent)

…eived 10% of the bill amount and it has received the balance 10% amount subsequently and has offered the same to taxation in A.Y.2011-12. Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in case for Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Associated Cables 286 ITR 596 (Bom) and various decisions of the Tribunal. 5. On the other hand learned AR submitted that as per Clause 6.3 of the Contract, the supplier has guaranteed the quality of products supplied and there was no liability of the assessee in case any defect was noted. Hence, there was no uncertainty in respect of receipt of balance 10% of retention money…