DCIT (E) 1(2), V. SATHYA SAI TRUST,

MA 323/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1704 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATAP THAKKAR

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, M UMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.MITTAL,(JM) AND RAJENDRA (AM) . . , , MA / NO.323/MUM/2013 ARISING OUT OF ./ ITA NO.7350/MUM/2011: / A.Y.: 2007-08 THE DY.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-1(2), ROM NO.504, 5 TH FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400012 VS. SRI SAT H YA SAI TRUST, DHARMASHETRA MAHAKALI CAVES ROAD, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI-400093 (APP LICANT ) (RESPONDENT) [ ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAATS2874E ( /: APPLICANT BY SHRI MAURYA PRATAP * ( + / RESPONDENT BY SHRI PRATAP THAKKAR + - / DATE OF HEARING : 14.2.2014 + - /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.2.2014 / O R D E R PER B.R.MITTAL, JM: THE DEBARMENT HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATION IN RESPECT OF TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 25.3.2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.7350/MUM/20 11 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 STATING THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT GIVEN ITS FINDIN GS ON GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL WHICH READS AS UNDER : 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS RIGHT IN IGNORING THE RATIO OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD V/S UNION OF INDIA (199 ITR 43) WHEREIN HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT DOUBLE DEDUCTI ON CANNOT BE PRESUMED IF THE SAME IS NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED BY LAW, IN ADDITION TO NORMAL DEDUCTION 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. DR CONCEDED THAT GRO UND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL IS CONNECTED WITH GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL TAKEN BY DEPARTMENT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN ITS FINDING IN RESPECT OF THE SAID GROUND. HE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY MISTAKE IN MA / NO.323/MUM/2013 2 THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE L D. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S INSTITUTE OF BANKING (2003) 264 ITR 110 (BOM). THEREFORE, TH ERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 + 1 2 14 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 + SD SD ( / RAJENDRA) ( . . /B.R.MITTAL) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI: . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ( / THE APPELLANT /APPLICANT 2. * ( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 6 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 6 / CIT 5. *8 , - 8 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) - 8 , /ITAT, MUMBAI