M/s. PRIVI ORGANICS LTD., MUMBAI V. ACIT - 4(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3594/MUM/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6267 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-10-2010
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2006
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARIGOVIND SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMEER G DALAL
• Section: 80HHC; 14A

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH B, MUMBAI BEFORE D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3594/MUM/2006. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03. PRIVI ORGANICS LTD., ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 205, PRINCESS STREET, V S. 4(3), MUMBAI. MUMBAI 400 002. PAN AAACP4717A APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAMEER G. DALAL. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HARI GOVIND SINGH. O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-XIV, MUMBAI DATED 28-02-2006 ON THE F OLLOWING GROUND : 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION O F THE AO, WHEREIN THE AO HAD DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON ACC OUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSES, AMOUNTING TO RS.7,28,430/-, BY INVOKING T HE PROVISION OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO REC ALCULATE THE AMOUNT OF BENEFIT ALLOWABLE U/S 80HHC OF THE ACT PERTAININ G TO D.E.P.B. INCENTIVE RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. 2 2. WE HAVE HEARD MR. SAMEERA G. DALAL, LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND MR. HARI GOVIND SINGH, THE LEARNED DR. 3. REGARDING GROUND NO. 1, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE I N QUESTION IS NOW COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF GODREJ BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. (2010) 234 CTR (BOM.) 1. 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION, THE I SSUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN THE LINE OF THE DE CISION CITED ABOVE. THE AO SHALL GIVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. 4. REGARDING GROUND NO.2, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. KALPATARU COLORS AND CHEMICALS, INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO. 2887 OF 2009 DATED 28/29 JUNE, 2010. 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DISMISS GROU ND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH NOV. , 2010. SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (J. SUDH AKAR REDDY) VICE PRESIDENT. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 24 TH NOV., 2010. WAKODE 3 COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, B-BENCH (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI B ENCHES, M UMBAI.