Back
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI BENCH)
Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member, Prabhash Shankar, Accountant Member
DCIT CC-7(2) MUMBAI MUMBAI – Appellant
Versus
TIME TECHNOPLAST MUMBAI – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revenue appeals against cit(a) orders. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. 80ic deduction disallowed due to inter-unit pre-used machinery transfers. (Para 3) |
| 3. depreciation disallowed on physically unavailable machinery. (Para 4) |
| 4. bogus purchases from radhika enterprises disallowed u/s 69c. (Para 5) |
| 5. prior itat orders bind; deletions upheld for 80ic, depreciation, bogus expenses. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 6. revenue appeal dismissed for ay 2016-17. (Para 9) |
| 7. excess depreciation disallowed on unverified pantnagar machinery. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 8. depreciation claim valid per books; prior itat rulings followed. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 9. 80ic deduction allowed despite delayed return per sc precedent. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 10. both revenue appeals dismissed. (Para 19 , 20) |
आदेश/ORDER
PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-
The above captioned appeals preferred by the Revenue emanate from the orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeal, CIT(A) 49, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Years [A.Ys.] 2016- 17 and 2018-19. Since the issues are common and interlinked a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
