Janata Industries, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 21, Mumbai
In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed
ITA 4025/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2009-10
Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S. Janata Industries 162, Janata Compound Tulsi Pipe Road, Senapati Bapat Marg ……………. Appellant Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 Pan – Aaafj4875E V/S Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–21, Mumbai M/S. Janata Industries 162, Janata Compound Tulsi Pipe Road, Senapati Bapat Marg ……………. Appellant Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 Pan – Aaafj4875E V/S Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–21, Mumbai
For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)
…, the order is barred by limitation. In support of such contentions, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Lark Chemicals Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 655 (Bom.); and ii) LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v/s PCIT, [2016] 388 ITR 135 (All.). 5. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, during the original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has enquired into and examined all issues, including, the claim of depreciation on the building. In this context, he drew our attention to the notice issued under section 14…
