Jupiter Construction, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19(3), Mumbai
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in part
ITA 5829/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2010-11
Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 5829/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Jupiter Construction Dy. Cit-19(3), बिाम/ Room No. 305, 3Rd Floor, Ground Floor, Narang Manor, 15Th Road, Plot No. 96-B, Bandra (W), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaugh, Vs. Mumbai-400 050 Mumbai-400 012 स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./ Pan/Gir No. Aaafj 1783 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi Kiran सुनवाई की तायीख / : 14.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : 28.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order By The Ld. Cit(A)-30, Mumbai Dated 17.6.2014, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11. 2. The First Grievance Of The Assessee Relates To The Disallowance Of Business Expenses Of Rs.5,19,743/-.
For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal &For Respondent: Shri K. Ravi Kiran
Section 143(3)Section 28
…lowing the loss incurred by the assessee. Reliance can be placed on the decision of Delhi Bench in the case of ITO vs. Mokul Finance (P) Ltd. [2007] 110 TTJ 445 (Del) and Hon’ble Calcutta High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Ganga Properties Ltd. [1993] 199 ITR 94 (Cal). 4. In view of the above, we do not find any justification for disallowance of the expenditure debited in the profit and loss account, merely because there was lull in the market and the assessee has not earned any business income during the year. 5. Ground nos. 2 and 3 was not pressed by the ld. AR, the same is therefore dismissed in limin…
