GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. v. ACIT

371 ITR 225High Court2015#3191 most cited

What is GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

If an assessment order passed under section 143(3) does not reflect any consideration of a specific issue raised during the regular assessment proceedings, it implies that no opinion was formed by the Assessing Officer on that issue.

37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. v. ACIT · 371 ITR 225 · section 143(3) · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · no opinion formed · assessment order · regular assessment proceedings · AO consideration

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 1961Section 147Section 144Section 14ASection 80PSection 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 263ofsection 115bbcinadequate enquirykelvinatoranonymous donationmere change of opinionrevision under section 263lack of enquirycorpus fundsection 263(1)malabar industrialchange of opinion

Judgments citing GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. v. ACIT

Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward3(1), Chennai, Tamilnadu vs. Salcomp Manufacturing India (P) Ltd, Chennai, Tamilnadu

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1403/CHNY/2023[2009-10, 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1403/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 V. The Ito, M/S. Salcomp Manufacturing- Corporate Ward-3(1), India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. Nokia Telecom Sez, Sipcot Industrial Park- Phase-Iii, Sriperumbudur, Chennai-602 105. [Pan: Aajcs 7988 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Muralidhar, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…son to interfere in the matter. This special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 10. Further, we note that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. v. ACIT reported in 371 ITR 225 had an occasion to deal with similar plea of the Revenue viz. that an assessment order passed u/s.143(3) doesn’t contain any discussion on an issue, it must follow that no opinion was formed by the AO in the regular assessment proceedings, was repelled by the Hon’ble High Court by observing as under:- 14. According to the Revenue, it could o…

Ashok Kumar Jain, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1394/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…low that the AO has accepted the assessee’s submission, so as to not deal with that issue in the assessment order. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay considering another decision of the same High Court in the case of GKN Sinter Metals Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in 371 ITR 225 has categorically pointed out that an assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act does not reflect any consideration of the issue, it must follow that no opinion was formd by the AO in the regular assessment proceedings. This submission was negatived by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the relevant paras 10 & 11 reads as under:- “10. It is und…

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S G.K.Ispat Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2408/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ded at the time of issuing the notice either by adding and/ or substituting the reasons by affidavit or otherwise-Reassessment was quashed.” The reliance is also placed to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of GKN Slinter Metals Ltd reported in (2015) 371 ITR 225 (Bom.) (HC) and in the case of Prashant S. Joshi reported in [2010] 324 ITR 154 (Bom.) I further find as it is also apparent from the reasons that the quantum of the alleged escaped income is not stated in the reasons. The AO has mentioned some transactions in the bank account but the said transactions cannot lead to income nor there is any whisp…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Gaurav Rose Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2407/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ded at the time of issuing the notice either by adding and/ or substituting the reasons by affidavit or otherwise-Reassessment was quashed.” The reliance is also placed to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of GKN Slinter Metals Ltd reported in (2015) 371 ITR 225 (Bom.) (HC) and in the case of Prashant S. Joshi reported in [2010] 324 ITR 154 (Bom.) I further find as it is also apparent from the reasons that the quantum of the alleged escaped income is not stated in the reasons. The AO has mentioned some transactions in the bank account but the said transactions cannot lead to income nor there is any whisp…

ACIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Securities Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 7357/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Farrokh IraniFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 73

…ssment proceedings in relation to the issue on which re-assessment proceedings have been initiated. Further, the manner in which an assessing officer would draft/frame the assessment order is not within control of an assessee [GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. vs. ACIT: 371 ITR 225 (Bom)]. We have perused the order of rejection of objection to reopening of assessment, dated 27.02.2013 and note that the arguments advanced by the Ld. Departmental Representative do not find place in the same. In the case of Hindustan Lever (supra) it has been held that the reasons recorded must be read as it is without any addition or inferenc…

Joint CIT (OSD) Cent Cir. 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2155/MUM/2016[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 1996-97
Section 143(3)

…ot passed a speaking order. See following decisions: Marico Ltd. v. ACIT (111 taxmann.com 253) (Bom HC) ACIT v. Marico Ltd. (117 taxmann.com 244) (SLP Dismissed) Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT (301 ITR 407) (Bom HC) (PB 7, Page 1 GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. v. ACIT (371 ITR 225) (Bom HC) (PB 7, 1393) Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. ACIT (367 ITR 405) (Bom HC) CIT v. Prima Paper And Engineering Industry (364 ITR 222) (Bom 10. The Appellant had relied on decisions like M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd., Special Bench in Reliance Industries (supra), Bombay High Court decision in case of Reliance Industries (which now has been set asi…

Priya Kishor Jagtiani, Nashik vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Nashik

In the result, all the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1276/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri C. H. Naniwadeker
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…ssarily follow, that the Assessing Officer has accepted the assessee's submissions, so as to not deal with that issue in the assessment order. In fact, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. vs. Ms. Ramapriya Raghavan, Asstt. CIT, 371 ITR 225 (Bom.) had occasion to deal with the identical situations, wherein, after referring to its earlier decision in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 301 ITR 407 (Bom.) and in the case of Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 367 ITR 405 (Bom.) held as follows :- “According to the Revenue, i…

Priya Kishor Jagtiani, Nashik vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Nashik

In the result, all the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1275/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri C. H. Naniwadeker
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…ssarily follow, that the Assessing Officer has accepted the assessee's submissions, so as to not deal with that issue in the assessment order. In fact, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. vs. Ms. Ramapriya Raghavan, Asstt. CIT, 371 ITR 225 (Bom.) had occasion to deal with the identical situations, wherein, after referring to its earlier decision in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 301 ITR 407 (Bom.) and in the case of Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 367 ITR 405 (Bom.) held as follows :- “According to the Revenue, i…

Priya Kishor Jagtiani, Nashik vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Nashik

In the result, all the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1274/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri C. H. Naniwadeker
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…ssarily follow, that the Assessing Officer has accepted the assessee's submissions, so as to not deal with that issue in the assessment order. In fact, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. vs. Ms. Ramapriya Raghavan, Asstt. CIT, 371 ITR 225 (Bom.) had occasion to deal with the identical situations, wherein, after referring to its earlier decision in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 301 ITR 407 (Bom.) and in the case of Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 367 ITR 405 (Bom.) held as follows :- “According to the Revenue, i…

Harshvardhan Constructions, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 5225/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.C Tiwari, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…f a mere ‗change of opinion‘ of his successor. In order to buttress his aforesaid claim reliance was placed by the ld. A.R on the judgment of the Hon‘ble High Court of Bombay in the case of GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. Vs. Ms. Ramapriya Raghavan, ACIT & Ors. (2015) 371 ITR 225 (Bom) and that of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). Relying on the said judicial pronouncements, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that an assessment cannot be reopened on a mere ‗change of opinion‘. It was further submitted by the ld. A.R that now when the assessee in course of verif…

ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Harshvardhan Constructions, Mumbai

ITA 5912/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.C Tiwari, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…f a mere ‗change of opinion‘ of his successor. In order to buttress his aforesaid claim reliance was placed by the ld. A.R on the judgment of the Hon‘ble High Court of Bombay in the case of GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. Vs. Ms. Ramapriya Raghavan, ACIT & Ors. (2015) 371 ITR 225 (Bom) and that of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). Relying on the said judicial pronouncements, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that an assessment cannot be reopened on a mere ‗change of opinion‘. It was further submitted by the ld. A.R that now when the assessee in course of verif…

ACIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Monarch Innovative Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4815/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4815/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिाम/ Acit,Circle 2(2)(2) M/S. Monarch Innovative R.No. 545, 5 T H Floor, Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Monarch House, Master V. M.K. Road Mind-Ii, Aarey Colony, Churchgate, Mayur Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Goregoan(E), Mumbai 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaccm6709P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Surji ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Tiwari
Section 115Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…n’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asteroids Trading and Investments P. Ltd v. DCIT reported in (2009) 308 ITR 190(Bom.). The assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. v. ACIT reported in (2015) 371 ITR 225(Bom). The assessee on merit drew our attention to para no. 3.6 of the appellate order of the learned CIT-A . The assessee relied upon decision of ITAT- Ahmadabad in the case of Parmeshwar Cold Storage Private Limited (2011) 16 taxmann.com 88(Ahd.) and it was submitted that audit report can be filed later even after filing of the return of income…

DCIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Tata Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2961/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharincome Tax Appeal No.2961/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tata Finance Ltd Large Tax Payer Unit (Now Merged With Tata Motors Centre -1, 29Th Floor Ltd.) World Trade Centre Bombay House 24 Cuffe Parade Homi Mody Street Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan : Aaact1629F (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Income Tax Appeal No.2962/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Tata Motors Ltd. Large Tax Payer Unit Bombay House, 24 Centre -1, 29Th Floor Homi Mody Street World Trade Centre Mumbai – 400 001 Cuffe Parade Pan : Aaact2T27Q Mumbai – 400 005 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva Sarkar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/12/2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-6, Mumbai Dated 27.01.2014 For The Assessment Years

For Appellant: Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva SarkarFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80G

….) vi) Siemens Information Systems Ltd. v. ACIT (295 ITR 333) (Bom.) vii) CIT v ICICI Bank Ltd. (349 ITR 482) (Bom.) viii) NYK Line (India) Ltd. v DCIT (346 ITR 361)(Bom.) ix) Aroni Commercials Ltd. v ACIT (377 ITR 405)(Bom.) x) GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. v ACIT (371 ITR 225) (Bom.) xi) Rabo India Finance Ltd. v DCIT (346 ITR 528)(Bom.) 9 Tata Finance Ltd. (now merged with Tata Motors Ltd) ITA No.2961 & 2962/Mum/2014, A.Ys.2003-04 & 2005-06 13. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and case laws relied on. On a perusal of the reasons for reopening for both these assessment…

Basanti Jeevanlal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 909/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 Smt. Basanti Jeevanlal Jain, The Income Tax Officer 287, Dharamraj Gully, Ward-14(3)(2), बनाम/ M.J. Market, Earnest House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Agdpj5258A

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54

…47 of the Act merely on the basis of change of opinion. The ratio laid down in Asian Paints Ltd. vs CIT (2009) (308 IR 195)(Bom.), CIT vs Central warehousing corporation (2015) 371 ITR 81 (Del.) and the ratio laid down in GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. vs ACIT (2015) 371 ITR 225 (Bom.), Techman Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 771 (Del.) supports our view. Further, if there is a failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to examine the documents during the original assessment proceedings that cannot be the basis to reopen the assessment as it was not fault of the assessee. The ratio laid 7 Smt. Basanti Jeevan…

Lupin Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 825/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2003-04) M/S. Lupin Limited Vs. Acit Ltu, 159, C.S.T Road, Kalina, Mumbai. Santa Cruz (East), Mumbai 400 098. Pan : Aaacl1069K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 115JSection 127Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 35Section 80Section 80I

…lied upon the following judgments : i) Kelvinator India Ltd., (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) ii) Kalvinator of India Ltd., (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del HC) iii) Motilal R. Todi, ITA No. 2910/Mum/2013 (Mum Trib) dated 22nd September, 2015 iv) GKN Sinter Metals Ltd., (2015) 371 ITR 225 (Bom HC) v) Oriental Insurance Company, (2015) 94 CCH 12 (Del HC) vi) Amitabh Bachchan, (2012) 349 ITR 76 (Bom HC) vii) Cartini India Ltd., (2009) 314 ITR 275 (Bom HC) viii) Asian Paints Ltd., (2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom HC) ix) Asteriods Trading & Investment P. Ltd., (2009) 308 ITR 190 (Bom HC) x) Commissioner of Income Tax vs Orient Craft Ltd., (20…

DCIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1827/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri V. MohanFor Respondent: Shri A. Kumbhar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

…the case of Asteroids Trading & Investments (P) Ltd. v. DCIT, 308 ITR 190; Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT, 308 ITR 195; Aventis Pharma Ltd. v. ACIT, 323 ITR 570 and GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. v. Ramapriya 5 M/s Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals Ltd. Raghavan, ACIT, 371 ITR 225. In addition, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that under the OTS scheme framed by the RBI assessee was entitled to certain benefits and PNB agreed to waive principal amount of loan aggregating to Rs.67,55,710/-. The loan amount has neither been debited to the Profit & Loss account in any of the preceding y…

Lawkim Ltd ( Now Merged With Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd), Mumbai vs. ITO WD 10(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 5092/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2016AY 2002-03
For Appellant: Ms. Sonali GodboleFor Respondent: Shri M.Murli
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 254(1)

…आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण," ए” खंडपीठ अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“A”,BENCH सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/ShJoginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ITA/5092/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2002-03 वष" Lawkim Ltd.(Now merged with Godrej & The Income tax Officer Boyce Co.Ltd.) Ward-10(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan C/o. Kalyaniwala & Mistry, Chartered M.K. Road Vs. Accountants, Kalpataru Heritage, Mumbai-400 020. 1…