ITO 20(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Network Consulting, Mumbai
In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed
ITA 4571/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2011-12
Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4571/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Ito-20(2)(3), 411, बिधम/ M/S. Network Consulting Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 102, Osia Friendship, 51, Vs. Mumbai-400012. Gaothan Lane No.4, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfn2945C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Suman Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 16.05.2014 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -31, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Ld Clt(A) Has Erred On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law In Allowing The Deduction U/S 10A Of The Act Amounting To Rs. 61,43,026/- Without Appreciating The Fact That As Per Clause 32 Of The Audit Report U/S 44Ab In Form No. 3Cd Submitted By The Assessee, The Auditor Has Mentioned That The Firm Is Into Service Industries & As Per Details Given By The Assessee A.Y.2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)
Section 10Section 10ASection 10A(1)Section 143(2)Section 1QSection 44A
…benefit of th assesses in certain specified circumstances. So long as the circular is i. force, it aids the uniform and proper administration and application of th provisions of the Act. {Refer to UCQ Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner (. Income Tax, W,8. (1999) 4 SCC 599]}." 7. by the teamed counsel for the appellant. CIT (1992) 193 ITR, 543 is misplaced one. Altogether a differed controversy was involved therein. There construction of povision granting incentive to particular income was not in issue. It wa rendered in the context of development rebate and is therefore distinguishable. 8. It is not disputed before…