NAVI MUMBAI SEZ P. LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5138/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 92469 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PAWAN KU MAR BEERLA
• Assessee Lawyers: HARSH BHUTA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5138/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 NAVI MUMBAI SEZ PRIVATE LTD. 1 ST FLOOR, JAI CENTRE, 34, P D MELLO ROAD, OPP. RED GATE, MAJID, MUMBAI 400 009 PAN:-AACCN0042N VS. DCIT RANGE 7 ( 1 ) MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HARSH BHUTA REVENUE BY : SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BEERLA DATE OF HEARING : 07 .0 5 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.05.2015 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AGAINS T ORDER DATED 29.05.2013 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-13, MUMBAI FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 ON THE F OLLOWING GROUND:- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPELLANTS CONTENTIO N THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.70,00,172/- UNDER SECTION 35D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS BAD IN LAW. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT TH E PRESENT APPEAL HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09, IN ITA NO.4931/MUM/2013 ORDER DATED 22.12. 2014, WHEREIN THE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.3,50,00,858/- HAS BEEN HELD TO BE ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENSES AND THEREFORE, THE CL AIM OF U/S 35D HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. ITA NO. 5138/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 2 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED SUM OF RS.3,50,00,858/- UNDER THE HEAD MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE IN THE P& L ACCOUNT IN THE A.Y. 2008-0 9, WHICH WAS ADDED BACK IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AT 1/5 TH OF THE SAME, BEING RS.70,00,172/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U./S 35D OF THE ACT. SIMILAR CLAIM OF 1/5 TH HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS YEAR ALSO. SINCE THE TRIBUNA L HAS ALREADY ALLOW THE ENTIRE EXPENSES IN THE A.Y. 2 008-09 THEREFORE, THIS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 35D HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 7 TH DAY OF MAY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (G.S PANNU) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 07.05.2015 *SRIVASTAVA COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR B BENCH // TRUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.