M/s Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd. and Another v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and Others

184 ITR 123High Court1990#5796 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35CCA Section 256(2)Section 260A Section 35(1)Section 115BBC Section 12AA Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

section 35(1)(ii)section 35(1)section 35 section 260 section 260a section 12aa section 133a section 26 section 143(2)section 25 company india

Judgments citing M/s Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd. and Another v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and Others

A.K. EXPORTERS,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 32,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 2286/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr.DR

Section 256Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.2285 & 2286/KOL/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 & 2013-2014) A.K.Exporters, Vs DCIT, Circle-32, Kolkata Phase-1, Plot No.3, Kasba Industrial Estate, Kolkata, West Bengal-700017 PAN No. :AAFFA 2164 A (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri Miraz D. Shah, AR रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronounce…

A.K. EXPORTERS,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 32,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 2285/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr.DR

Section 256Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35C

NADIA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,NADIA vs. THE LD. PR. CIT, KOLKATA 1, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathancathy Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ward-5 (2), Kolkata Model House, 3Rd Floor, Room No.10, 40, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001 Aadcc 5211 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Miraz D. Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 28.03.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051484765(1) For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That In The Course Of Assessment The Ao Had Disallowed The Assessee'S Donation Of Rs.7 Lakhs Made To M/S Herbicure Health Care Bio Herbal Research Foundation (Hhbrf) Which Have The Approval U/S.35(1)(Ii) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That Consequently The Disallowance Made Was To An Extent Of Rs.12,25,000/-. It Was The Submission That On Appeal, Ld. Cit(A) Without Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee Nor The Reply To The Remand Report Confirmed

For Appellant: Shri Miraz D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35C

…ecisions namely CIT v. Ethelbari Tea Co. (1931) Ltd., [2002] 256 ITR 470 (Cal), B.P. Agarwalla and Sons Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 863 (Cal), K.M. Scientific Research Centre v. Lakshman Prasad [1998] 229 ITR 23, Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd.v. IAC [1990] 184 ITR 123, CIT v. Bhartia Cutler Hammer Co.[1998] 232 ITR 785, Chotatingrai Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 644, held that for the mistake committed by the department the assessee should not suffer. The withdrawal of approval to the society for retrospective effect is itself bad and no assessee should suffer for the mistake of the department. Th…

ATLANTIS IT SOLUTION,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,6(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 303/MUM/2025[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shi Prabhash Shankaratlantis It Solution Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income- 8, Engineer Building, Awabai Tax 6(2), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Kasahinath Tardeo, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400 020 400 034 Pan : Aalca6845 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, SR DR

Section 115BSection 12ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35ASection 80G(5)

…y with retrospective effect. It is pertinent to note that the Chennai bench of Tribunal has placed its reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (1990)(184 ITR 123). In the case of Sekasaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd, the assessment was reopened to withdraw the deduction allowed u/s 35CCA of the Act on the basis of cancellation of approval with retrospective effect. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court expressed the view that the giving retrospective effect to the cancellation of approval was not valid. Accordingly…

J G ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.,O,WARD-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 1145/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35Section 40

…decisions namely CIT v. Ethelbari Tea Co.(1931) Ltd., [2002] 256 ITR 470 (Cal), B.P. Agarwalla and Sons Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 863 (Cal), K.M. Scientific Research Centre v. Lakshman Prasad [1998] 229 ITR 23, Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd.v. IAC [1990] 184 ITR 123, CIT v. Bhartia Cutler Hammer Co.[l 998] 232 ITR 785, Chotatingrai Tea Estate Put. Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 644, held that for the mistake committed by the department the assessee should not suffer. The withdrawal of approval to the society for retrospective effect is itself bad and no assessee should suffer for the mistake of the department. T…

PRAFULLA KUMAR MALAKAR, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KANYA KUMARI PROPERTIES PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 2027/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 35(1)(ii)

…decisions namely CIT v. Ethelbari Tea Co.(1931) Ltd., [2002] 256 ITR 470 (Cal), B.P. Agarwalla and Sons Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 863 (Cal), K.M. Scientific Research Centre v. Lakshman Prasad [1998] 229 ITR 23, Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd.v. IAC [1990] 184 ITR 123, CIT v. Bhartia Cutler Hammer Co.[1998] 232 ITR 785, Chotatingrai Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 644, held that for the mistake committed by the department the assessee should not suffer. The withdrawal of approval to the society for retrospective effect is itself bad and no assessee should suffer for the mistake of the department. Th…

SURENDRA KUMAR KAPUR. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-22, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 1354/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1354/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Surendra Kumar Kapur ………. Appellant (Pan: Afxpk4223K) Vs. Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 14.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 12.06.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata Dated 31.03.2016. I.T.A. No. 1354/Kol/2023 A Y: 2013-14, Surendra Kumar Kapur 2. Though Registry Has Reported That This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Time Barred By 62 Days However, Considering The Date Of Receipt Of The Impugned Order, We Find That There Is No Delay In Filing This Appeal. We, Therefore, Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits.

Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35(1)(ii)

…us decisions namely CIT v. Ethelbari Tea Co.(1931) ua., [2002] 256 ITR 470 (Cal) B.P. Agarwalla and Sons Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 863 (Cal) K.M. Scientific Research Centre v. Lakshman Prasad [1998] 229 ITR 23] Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd.v. IAC [1990] 184 ITR 123 CIT v. Bhartia Cutler Hammer Co.[1998] 232 ITR 785 Chotatingrai Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 644 held that for the mistake committed by the department the assessee should not suffer. The withdrawal of approval to the society for retrospective effect is itself bad and no assessee should suffer for the mistake of the department. The d…

MET PRO CHEMICALS ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE , DELHI

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

ITA 2611/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Met Pro Chemicals V. Cit(A) Room No. 208, Alankar Building National Faceless Appeal Centre Samuel Street, Masjid Bunder Delhi Mumbai - 400003 Pan: Aabfm0950E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Manoj Pandit Shri. Ashish Kumar Deharia Department Represented By :

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 35(1)(ii)

…on to the trust. Therefore, the assessee has paid the donation in good faith and the same donation cannot be treated as bogus. In this regard, he relied on the following case laws: - a. Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factor v. Inspecting Assistant commissioner (1990) 184 ITR 123. b. CIT v. Chotatingrai Tea & Others (2002) 258 ITR 529. c. Bhavita Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., v. Income Tax Officer in ITA.No. 3665/Mum/2019 dated 01.12.2020 d. Kiran Aluminum India Pvt. Ltd., v. ACIT in ITA.No. 7429/Mum/2018 dated 06.01.2020. 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and he argued that the funds given…

M/S HYPACK INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 26 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 5713/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5713/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 5714/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra

Section 133ASection 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

…C) (ii) Vora Finance Services (P)Ltd. 96 taxmann.com 88(Mumbai-Trib) (iii)National Leather Cloth Manufacturing Co., vs. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, 241 ITR 0482(Bom) (iv) Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd., vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, 184 ITR 123(Bom) (v) Bhanumati Malraj Kabali vs. ITO, 102 taxamman.com 332(Bom) 4. On the other hand, Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra representing the Department vehemently defended the action of CIT(A) in upholding disallowance of donation made by assessee to School of Human Genetics & Population Health. The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that a survey…

DCIT-CC-8(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SOEX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6326/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dcit, Cc-8(1) Soex India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 656, Vs. 21St Floor, Nirmal Building, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon, D.RFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Ghosh, A.R

Section 133DSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

…turning back of the same to the donor assessee after deducting a commission at the rate of 5 per cent on the donation amount. The tribunal following the decision of Bombay high court in Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner [1990] 184 ITR 123/52 Taxmann 257(Bom)HC) decided in favour of the Assessee. The relevant portion of the said decision is as under: ITA No. 6326/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 6 DCIT, CC-8(1) Vs. Soex India Pvt. Ltd. "7. The Assessing Officer denied the claim of the assessee on the ground that the above approval of the Central Government has been withdrawn retrospectively…

PRADIP TONDON,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-62, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2315/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 35(1)(ii)Section 80G

…ction claimed in respect of the donation given by the assessee cannot be denied. This view of ours has been approved by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in M/s Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd. and Another vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and Others (1990) 184 ITR 123 and we note that this view has been consistently taken when application of weighted deduction has been claimed against M/s. HHBHRF. Moreover, our view is fortified by the Explanation given u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Act is reproduced under: “Section 35(1)(ii) - Explanation. The deduction, to which the assessee is entitled in respect of any sum paid t…

INDRADHANUSH AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-8(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1668/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 35(1)(ii)

EVER SHINE JEWEL HOUSE ,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 2546/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

…ction claimed in respect of the donation given by the assessee cannot be denied. This view of ours has been approved by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in M/s Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd. and Another vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and Others (1990) 184 ITR 123 and we note that this view has been consistently taken when application of weighted deduction has been claimed against M/s. HHBHRF. Moreover, our view is fortified by the Explanation given u/s.35(1)(ii) of the Act is reproduced under: “Section 35(1)(ii) - Explanation. The deduction, to which the assessee is entitled in respect of any sum paid to…

EVER SHINE JEWEL HOUSE ,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 2545/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

…ction claimed in respect of the donation given by the assessee cannot be denied. This view of ours has been approved by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in M/s Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd. and Another vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and Others (1990) 184 ITR 123 and we note that this view has been consistently taken when application of weighted deduction has been claimed against M/s. HHBHRF. Moreover, our view is fortified by the Explanation given u/s.35(1)(ii) of the Act is reproduced under: “Section 35(1)(ii) - Explanation. The deduction, to which the assessee is entitled in respect of any sum paid to…

KIRAN ALUMINIUM INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7429/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm Kiran Aluminum India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. A.C.I.T., 229-A, Kewal Industrial Estate, Circle-4(2)(2), Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, New Parel (W), Mumbai-490013. Marine Lines, Mumbai. Pan/Gir No.Aaack 2073 L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

…aimed in respect of donation cannot be denied. This view of ours has 4 Kiran Aluminum India P Ltd. Vs ACIT been approved by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd. and Another vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and Others (1990) 184 ITR 123 and this view this Tribunal has been consistently taken when application of weighted deduction claimed against M/s. HHBHRF has come before us. Moreover, our view is fortified by the Explanation given u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Act is reproduced under: “Section 35(1)(ii) - Explanation. The deduction, to which the assessee is entitled in respect of any…

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as per the discussion supra

ITA 465/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 35(1)(ii)

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as per the discussion supra

ITA 464/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 35(1)(ii)

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DESMET REAGENT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 15/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

…oncerned institution, the deduction claimed in respect of donation cannot be denied. This view of ours has been approved by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd. and Another vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and Others (1990) 184 ITR 123 and this view this Tribunal has been consistently taken when application of weighted deduction claimed against M/s. HHBHRF has come before us. Moreover, our view is fortified by the Explanation given u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Act is reproduced under: “Section 35(1)(ii) - Explanation. The deduction, to which the assessee is entitled in respect of an…

M/S P. R. ROLLING MILLS P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 529/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT-DR)

Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

…T Vs. General Magnets Ltd. (Calcutta) 253 ITR 471(case law PB 72-74) - Jai Kumar Kankaria Vs. CIT (Calcutta) 251 ITR 707 (case law PB 75-77) - K.M. Scientific Rresearch Centre Vs. Laxman Prasad (Allahabad) - Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd. Vs. IAC (Bombay) 184 ITR 123 - Chotatingrai Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Guahati) 236 ITR 644 - ITO Vs. M.C. Ponnoose (SC) 118 ITR (St.)32 6. On the other hand, the ld CIT DR has relied on the orders of the authorities below. 7. The Bench have heard both the sides on the issues raised in appeal, perused the material available on the record and also considered the case l…

VORA FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 532/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S. Vora Financial Services P. Ltd. A C I T - 2(3((1) 801/806, 8Th Floor, Elite Square Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 274, Perin Nariman, St. Bazar Gate M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacv1975E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan

Section 14ASection 35(1)(iii)Section 56(2)(viia)

…y with retrospective effect. It is pertinent to note that the Chennai bench of Tribunal has placed its reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (1990)(184 ITR 123). In the case of Sekasaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd, the assessment was re- opened to withdraw the deduction allowed u/s 35CCA of the Act on the basis of cancellation of approval with retrospective effect. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court expressed the view that the giving retrospective effect to the cancellation of approval was not valid. According…