DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI vs. DOUBLE DOT FINANCE LTD, MUMBAI
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed
ITA 1079/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2006-07
Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Doubledot Finance Ltd. Vs. Dcit Rg 4(1) R. No. 642, 1St Floor, Kanta Terrace Room No. 640 533, Kalbadevi Road, M.K. Road, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400002 Mumbai - 400020 Pan No. Aabcd5429J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit Rg 4(1) Vs. M/S. Doubledot Finance Ltd. R. No. Room No. 640 R. No. 642, 1St Floor, Kanta Terrace M.K. Road, Aayakar Bhavan 533, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai - 400002 Pan No. Aaacd5429J Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Doubledot Finance Ltd. Vs. Dcit Rg 4(1) R. No. 642, 1St Floor, Kanta Terrace Room No. 640 533, Kalbadevi Road, M.K. Road, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400002 Mumbai - 400020 Pan No. Aabcd5429J
For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 176
…y High Court in Jai Kishan Narang vs. CIT 50 ITR 700 (Bom) stating that loss of a dead, separate and distinct business cannot be set off against income of another continuing business. The AO also relied on the decision in the case of I.S. & C. Machado vs. CIT 75 ITR 38 (Mad.) wherein it has been held that as the lease rent and cess do not relate to the current years business of the assessee, they are not allowable. 8. The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the AO before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) noted that the salt works manufacturing business was being run by the assessee in the name…
