ACIT 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PUNIT CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed
ITA 6980/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2011-12
Bench: Sri Joginder Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am M/S Punit Construction Co. Jcit-25(3), 5Th C-11, 3Rd Floor, Floor, Agarwal Golden Chamber, Plot No. 13/A, Fun Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Vs. Republic Road, Off New Link Bkc, Bandra(E), Road, Andheri(W), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400053 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaafp1231E Acit-25(3), M/S Punit Construction Co. Room No.308, 3Rd Floor, Agarwal Residency, Bldg. No.C-11, Pratyaksh Kar Shankar Lane, Vs. Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra(E), Kandivali(W), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400067
For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram/Aditya AjgaonkarFor Respondent: HN Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I
…y to pay has been wiped out from existence. In this regard, he relied upon the following judgments: 1. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. vs. CIT (2016) 137 DTR 217 (Delhi) (HC) 2. National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (2017) 393 ITR 666 (Delhi)(HC) 3. CIT vs. Kumaran & Co. (1992) 194 ITR 85 (Ker.)(HC) 4. CIT vs. Investigation & Security Service (India) (P) (Ltd) (1990) 182 ITR 358 (AP) (HC) 17. We have heard both the parties and considered material on record. The AO disallowed provision for outstanding expenses related to ULC charges payable to Government of Maharashtra. The AO…