ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. G Shoes Exports, Mumbai
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed
ITA 6209/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11
Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5736/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) G. Shoes Exports Asst. Cit-25(1)/Cit City 25 बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, 1, Hitex Industrial Estate, S. V. Road, Dahisar (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Mumbai-400 068 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfg 5376 P (Assessee) : (Revenue) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6209/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बनाम/ Asst. Cit-25(1), G. Shoes Exports Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 068 Vs. (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Radheshyam Jain : Shri Airiju Jaikaran Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 24.06.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 16.7.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 Vide Order Dated 20.3.2013. 2
For Appellant: Shri Radheshyam Jain
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)
…ated 7.2.2000, and that its withdrawal per Circular No. 7 of 2009 (dated 22.10.2009) could not be given a retrospective effect. Reliance for this proposition is placed on number of decisions by the tribunal, as in the case of CIT (Dy.) vs. Sanjiv Gupta [2011] 135 TTJ 641 (Luck). 8. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. As explained in CIT vs. R. D. Aggarwal & Co. [1965] 56 ITR 20 (SC), which stands referred to in CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. [1980] 125 ITR 525 (SC), and continues to govern the field, business connection involves the relationship between the business carried on by a non-resident…
