ITO 5(1)(2), MUMBAI V. BARMRCHA IMPEX P LTD, GUJRAT

ITA 1603/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78678 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 08-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SAHU
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJUKTA CHOW DHURY

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G B ENCH, MUMBAI , , , ! '# $ $ $ $ % & ' , '# ) BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, AM AND SHRI AMIT SHUK LA, JM ./ I.T.A. NO.1603/MUM/2011 ( * * * * / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08 THE ITO 5(1)(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. M/S. BARMRCHA IMPEX PVT. LTD., SHOP NO. 27-32, MAZ FLOOR, NAVAMANGALAM COMPLEX, CITYLIGHT SURAT, GUJARAT-395 007 #+ ! ./ , ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACB 2197C ( +- / APPELLANT ) .. ( ./+- / RESPONDENT ) +- 0 / APPELLANT BY: SHRI R.K. SAHU ./+- 1 0 / RESPONDENT BY: SANJUKTA CHOWDHURY 1 %2! / DATE OF HEARING :08.04.2014 34* 1 %2! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :08.04.2014 '& / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS PREFERRED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-9, MUMBAI DT.08.12.2010 PERTAINING TO A .Y. 2007-08. 2. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD . CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 10A OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 1603/MUM/2011 2 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION O F THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 VID E ITA NO. 6623/MUM/2007. 4. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY CONCE DED TO THIS. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BASED HIS FINDINGS ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2004-05 AN D HAS EXHIBITED THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AT PARA 2.2 OF HIS ORDER. AS NO DISTINGUISHING FACTS/DECISION HAVE BEEN BROUGHT BEF ORE US, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD . CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08.04.2014 . '& 1 4* ! 5 6'7 08.04.2014 4 1 8 SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) '# /JUDICIAL MEMBER ! '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 6' DATED 8.4.2014 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS ITA NO. 1603/MUM/2011 3 '& '& '& '& 1 11 1 .% .% .% .% 9*% 9*% 9*% 9*% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. +- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./+- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. : / CIT 5. ;8 .% , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 8< = / GUARD FILE. '& '& '& '& / BY ORDER, /% .% //TRUE COPY// > >> > / ? ? ? ? (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI