CA (INDIA) TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI V. ACIT CIR. 10(1), MUMBAI

MA 98/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5019 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RADHA KATYAL NARAN G

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -KBENCH M UMBAI , . . , BEFORE S/SH.RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND C.N. PRASAD,JUDICIAL MEMBER (M.A. NO. 98/MUM/2016-ARISING OUT OF ITA/ 8218/MUM/2010-ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07 CA (INDIA) TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. GROUND FLOOR, VIBGYOR TOWER PLOT-C-62, G-BLOCK,BKC BANDRA (E)MUMBAI-400 051. PAN: AAACC 4971 D VS ACIT 10(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN,MUMBAI. ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY :SHRI DHANESH BAFNA / RESPONDENT BY :SHRI RADHA KATYAL NARANG / DATE OF HEARING :07-10 -2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-10 -2016 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, A.M. !' VIDE ITS APPLICATION,DATED 03.05.2016,THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY HAS STATED THAT THERE WERE SOME MISTAKES IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL,THAT SAME WER E TO BE RECTIFIED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT,THAT THERE WAS TYPOGRAPHI CAL ERROR IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR MENTIONED AT PAGE-2 AND 14 OF THE ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT ADJUDICATE GROUND NO.7,RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE . 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) REITERATED THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS AND FURTHER STATED THAT THE TRIBUNA L HAD DISALLOWED THE CLAIM TO SPREAD THE ROYALTY FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, THAT IT HAD DI RECTED THAT PAYMENT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR ONE YEAR ONLY,THAT THE ALTERNATE GROUND(GOA-7) WAS NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) LEFT THE ISSUE TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCH. 3. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AT PAGE 2 AND 14 H AS BEEN WRONGLY TYPED AND SAME SHOULD BE READ AS UNDER:- ITA NO.8218/MUM/2010(ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07). WE FIND THAT GROUND NO.7 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE (AL TERNATE GROUND WITHOUT PREJUDICE) HAS REMAINED UN-ADJUDICATED.THEREFORE, WE RECALL OUR OR DER TO THAT EXTENT. REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE CASE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE I.E. TO DECIDE THE GROUND NO.7. MA/98/M2016-CA(INDIA)TPL 2 AS A RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07 TH OCTOBER, 2016. 07.10.2016 SD/- D/- SD/- D SD/- ( . . / C.N. PRASAD) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE:07.10.2016 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR K BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.