Lily Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(2), Mumbai
The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations
ITA 1687/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2021AY 2012-13
Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Lily Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Unit No. 503, Block No. Ii, Vs. Officer – 10(2)(2) Seepz-Sez, Seepz++, Room No. 350, 3Rd Floor, Andheri (East), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 096 Mumbai Pan No. Aaacl9600J (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Aamod Prabhudesai & : Ms. Shubhangi Prabhudesai, A.Rs Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, D.R Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/02/2021
For Appellant: Shri Aamod Prabhudesai &For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, D.R
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36
…er - Held, yes [Para5] [ In favour of assessee] 6.1 The above decision squarely applies to the present case. This is the only decision of a High Court applicable to the case at hand which has been cited before us. In the case of Dr. T.P. Kapadia vs. CIT[1973] 87 ITR 511 (Mys.) it has been held that a decision of a High Court would have binding force in the State in which it has jurisdiction. 6.2 Even in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 (Dania Oro Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO) relied on by the ld. DR, we find that in some of the cases the terms of credit has been extended beyond 700 days an…