DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SICOM LTD, MUMBAI
In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove
ITA 1685/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2016AY 2003-2004
Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Sicom Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai-20 Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) & Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai- Vs. M/S. Sicom Ltd., Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, 20 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 41
…t taxable as income. The Tribunal also held that such remission cannot be charged to tax u/. 41 (1) since the corresponding liability was not allowed as deduction in earlier years. The decision of Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd s. DCIT (304 ITR 167)(Mum) (AT) is also on similar facts and it has followed the decision of Prism Cement’s case. 4.17. In a recent decision of the Bangalore Tribunal in the 'case of Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd vs. DCIT (2008- TIOL-245-ITAT-BANG), the assessee was a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) engaged in finance business by accepting deposits from deposito…