9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usiness activities - HELD THAT:- This ground was argued to consequential in nature. CIT-DR did not object to the argument of the assessee that this is consequential in nature. Since, we have remanded the above grounds to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer, for fresh adjudication, therefore, this ground is also sent to his file being consequential in nature. AO is directed to examine the factual matrix and after giving opportunity to the assessee to decide afresh, consequently, allowed for statistical purposes. Set off of business loss of earlier years - HELD THAT:- This ground as argued to be consequential in nature. The Ld. Assessing Officer is directed to examine the issue afresh. The assessee be given opportunity, thus, set-aside t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2008-09 (ITA No.2572/Mum/2012) order dated 19/11/2014 allowed the appeal of the assessee and held as under:- This appeal filed by the assessee opnm 17.4.2012 is against the order of the CIT (A)-22, Mumbai dated 30.11.2011 for the assessment year 2008-2009. 2. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under: The Appellant submits the following grounds, which are without prejudice to one another: 1. Re: Treatment of income from manufacturing services as income from other sources amounting to ₹ 2,70,75,330/-: 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er income of ₹ 3,86,542/- as income from other sources. 4. Re: Disallowance of expenditure pertaining to the business activity. 4.1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, CIT (A) grossly erred in upholding the disallowance by the AO of the entire expenditure claimed by the appellant against its business income on the ground that the appellant was not actively engaged in the manufacturing and running of business activity during the year. 4.2 Without prejudice to the above, the CIT (A) erred in denying the deduction u/ s 57 in respect of the actual expenditure incurred for earning the above income. 5. Deduction u/s 35 (1) (i) in respect of expenditure incurred for R D activity: 5.1 On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and failed to handover the said order to the tax advisors / Senior Executives for filing an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant came to know about the CIT (A) order when the Tax Advisors and Authorized Representative of the appellant, CA Deepesh Chhedda enquired with the office of CIT (A) regarding the order and was informed that the order was already passed and dispatched to the appellant some time back. On receiving the said information from Tax Advisors, the impugned order was found. The CIT (A) order was received by the appellant on 14.12.2011 and due date of filing an appeal to ITAT was on 12.2.2012 hence there is a delay of 64 days in fling the appeal. 4. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in both the years. 8. On the other hand, Ld DR relied on the order of the AO / CIT (A). 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the cited orders of the Tribunal (supra). On perusal of the said orders of the Tribunal, we find the ITAT adjudicated the identical issues and remanded the grounds to the file of the AO for a fresh adjudication. Respectfully following the orders of the Tribunal (supra) as well as following the principle of consistency, we remand the grounds raised in the present appeal also with identical directions given by the Tribunal in the AYs 2006- 2007 and 2007-2008 to the file of the AO for adjudicating them afresh. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also argued to be consequential in nature. The Ld. Assessing Officer is directed to examine the issue afresh. The assessee be given opportunity, thus, set-aside to the file of the Assessing Officer, being consequential in nature. 5. The last ground pertains to treatment of interest income as income from other sources. This ground of the assessee is also sent to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the factual matrix and decide in accordance with law. Thus, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This order was pronounced in the open in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 19/04 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
