M/S. Roseberry Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Meerut
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed
ITA 2995/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2018AY 2008-09
Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09 Roseberry Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 14D, 14Th Floor, Hansalaya, Central Circle, 15, Barakhamba Road, Bhainsali Road, New Delhi. Meerut. Pan: Aabcr3485J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.C. Srivastava & Shri Suvinay K. Dash, Advocates Revenue By : Shri S.S. Rana, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2018 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10Th March, 2015 Of The Cit(A), Meerut, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Derives Income From Interest On Loans & Advances Granted By It As An Nbfc & Profit On Sale Of Mutual Funds. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 6Th November, 2008 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. Nil. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 8Th July, 2009. Subsequently, The Case Was Reopened U/S 147 After Duly Recording The Reasons In Writing. In Response To Notice U/S 148 Of The It Act Dated 23Rd October, 2009, The Assessee Submitted To Treat The Original Return As Return Filed In Compliance To Notice U/S 148 Of The It Act, 1961. Subsequently, The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 31St December, 2009 Determining The Total Income At Rs.73,510/- Wherein He Made Certain Additions By Disallowing Stt Debited To P&L Account, Income-Tax Debited, Disallowance U/S 14A & Preliminary Expenses.
For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava &For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 68
…(Del) iv) CIT vs. Lancy Constructions (2016) 383 ITR 168; v) CIT vs. ST. Francies Clay Décor Tiles (2016) 240 Taxman 168; & vi) CIT v. Promy Kuriakose (2016) 386 ITR 597 (Ker.) 11.1 He also relied on the following decisions:- i) CIT vs MAF Academy (P) Ltd., 361 ITR 258; ii) CIT vs. Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 306 (Del); iii) Konark Structural Engineering (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2018) 90 taxmann.com 56 (Bom); iv) DRB Exports (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 93 taxmann.com 490 (Cal); v) Prem Castings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2017) 88 taxmann.com 189 (All); vi) CIT vs. Nipun Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. 30 taxmann.com 2…
