Enterprises (2003) 79 TTJ (Mad) 82, Kay Arr Enterprises (2006) 99 ITJ (Chennai), CIT v. Kunnamkulam Mill Board

Asst CIT (OSD) -I Cen RG 7, Mumbai vs. Sukhraj B Nahar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2006-07 The Acit (Osd)-I, Shri Sukhraj B. Nahar, Central Range-7, B-1, Mahalaxmi Chambers, Room No. 413, 4Th Floor, 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Vs. Mahalaxmi- 8, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400026 Pan: Aarpn9313R (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri A. Mohan (Cit) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punamiya (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 18/09/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/10/2017

…wrongly 4 Assessment Year: 2006-07 deleted the addition made by the AO. We notice that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition relying on the following judgments/orders: i) CIT vs. Hind Construction Ltd.1974 CTR 157(SC), ii) CIT vs. Kunnamkulam Mill Board 257 ITR 544, iii) ITO vs. Paru D Dave 110 ITD 410 Mum. ( Tribunal) , iv) DCIT vs. Manish M Chheda 29 SOT 138 Mum. (Tribunal) and v) Girish Textile Industries vs. ACIT 10 SOT, Mum (Tribunal) 8. The concluding para of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) reads as under: “12. In view of the above discussion, as also in view of the case laws discussed he…

ACIT 18(2), Mumbai vs. Keshav & Company, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaita No. : 5639/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Vs Keshav & Company, Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), B-607, Arihant Bldg., 6Th Floor, Sudha Park, Vashi Railway Station, Behind Garodia Nagar, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400 077 Pan:Aacpk 1625 P ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Vs Keshav & Company, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai -400 077 ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) C.O. No. 273/Mum/2013 Arising Out Of Ita No.6276/Mum/2012, Ay-2006-07 Keshav & Company, Vs Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Mumbai -400 077 Vashi, Navi Mumbai ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Assessee "ी राजन वोहरा : Shri Rajan Vohra Cross Objector By "ी बी पृसेठ Shri B Pruseth Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 13-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30-09-2016

…the firm or otherwise; (iv) In support of its contention, the assessee relied upon various judicial decision of the ITAT and also relied upon the following High Court decisions:-  CIT vs. Vijayalaxmi Metal 256 ITR 540 (Mad);  CIT vs. Kunnamkulam Mill Board 257 ITR 544 (Kar.);  CIT vs. Manglore Ganesh Beed Works 285 ITR 659 (Kar); (v) The assessee finally submitted that charging of such income in the hands of partnership would lead to absurd result as the same income has already been taxed in the hands of partner and the same will lead to double taxation of the same income. In support of this contention, the a…

Keshav and Company, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaita No. : 5639/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Vs Keshav & Company, Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), B-607, Arihant Bldg., 6Th Floor, Sudha Park, Vashi Railway Station, Behind Garodia Nagar, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400 077 Pan:Aacpk 1625 P ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Vs Keshav & Company, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai -400 077 ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) C.O. No. 273/Mum/2013 Arising Out Of Ita No.6276/Mum/2012, Ay-2006-07 Keshav & Company, Vs Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Mumbai -400 077 Vashi, Navi Mumbai ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Assessee "ी राजन वोहरा : Shri Rajan Vohra Cross Objector By "ी बी पृसेठ Shri B Pruseth Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 13-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30-09-2016

…the firm or otherwise; (iv) In support of its contention, the assessee relied upon various judicial decision of the ITAT and also relied upon the following High Court decisions:-  CIT vs. Vijayalaxmi Metal 256 ITR 540 (Mad);  CIT vs. Kunnamkulam Mill Board 257 ITR 544 (Kar.);  CIT vs. Manglore Ganesh Beed Works 285 ITR 659 (Kar); (v) The assessee finally submitted that charging of such income in the hands of partnership would lead to absurd result as the same income has already been taxed in the hands of partner and the same will lead to double taxation of the same income. In support of this contention, the a…

Ramesh Builders, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

…The assessee relied on the decision of ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of (2009) 30 DTR 75, Tribunal decision reported in 126 ITD 131, DCIT v. G. K. Enterprises (2003) 79 TTJ (Mad) 82, Kay Arr Enterprises (2006) 99 ITJ (Chennai), CIT v. Kunnamkulam Mill Board 257 ITR 544 (Kerala) and other decisions and submitted that it was not a case of dissolution of firm but only a reconstitution of firm on account of retirement of one of the partners and therefore, provisions of sec.45(4) were not applicable. The ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions and the facts of the case. The learned CIT(A) observed that during the yea…

Ramesh Builders (India), Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

…The assessee relied on the decision of ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of (2009) 30 DTR 75, Tribunal decision reported in 126 ITD 131, DCIT v. G. K. Enterprises (2003) 79 TTJ (Mad) 82, Kay Arr Enterprises (2006) 99 ITJ (Chennai), CIT v. Kunnamkulam Mill Board 257 ITR 544 (Kerala) and other decisions and submitted that it was not a case of dissolution of firm but only a reconstitution of firm on account of retirement of one of the partners and therefore, provisions of sec.45(4) were not applicable. The ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions and the facts of the case. The learned CIT(A) observed that during the yea…