ACIT 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PUNIT CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed
ITA 6980/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2011-12
Bench: Sri Joginder Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am M/S Punit Construction Co. Jcit-25(3), 5Th C-11, 3Rd Floor, Floor, Agarwal Golden Chamber, Plot No. 13/A, Fun Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Vs. Republic Road, Off New Link Bkc, Bandra(E), Road, Andheri(W), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400053 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaafp1231E Acit-25(3), M/S Punit Construction Co. Room No.308, 3Rd Floor, Agarwal Residency, Bldg. No.C-11, Pratyaksh Kar Shankar Lane, Vs. Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra(E), Kandivali(W), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400067
For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram/Aditya AjgaonkarFor Respondent: HN Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I
…hence, the profit from power generation has to be considered as one eligible business. The CIT(A) distinguished case laws relied upon by the assessee on facts and observed that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Deewan Craft Systems Pvt. Ltd. 297 ITR 305 has considered the issue in the light of two manufacturing units set up by the assessee in two different locations, and out of two units one unit is eligible unit and the second unit is non-eligible unit, under those circumstances, the Court held that the profit of eligible unit alone needs to be considered without setting off loss from non-eligi…