Back
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI BENCH)
Vikram Singh Yadav, Accountant Member, Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member
Income Tax Officer – Appellant
Versus
Cinepolis India Private Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural compliance and the nature of original assessment challenges. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. characterization of entertainment tax subsidy as a capital receipt versus revenue receipt. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. conditions for disallowance u/s 14a in the absence of exempt income. (Para 12) |
| 4. impact of capital subsidies on the cost of acquisition and subsequent depreciation claims. (Para 13) |
O R D E R
Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:
1. The present appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against the Order, dated 05/03/2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby Learned CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 23/03/2025, passed under Section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’],for the Assessment Year 2012-2013.
2. There is a delay of 469 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. When the appeal was taken up for hearing Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue appearing before us submitted that the delay in filing the present appeal be condoned and in this regard reliance was placed upon the applic
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
