TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1444
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nting to Rs. 3,86,88,565/- and lease rental from other sources, amounting to Rs. 3 cores. During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Anuk Kishnadwala, contended that for earlier year, the Tribunal considered the factual matrix and remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of facts and to decide accordingly. The Ld. counsel filed paper book running into 16 pages containing the orders of the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2006-07 to 2008-09. This factual matrix was not controverted by Shri R.P. Meena, Ld. CIT-DR. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd engineers for rendering of manufacturing services to the Lessee as a composite arrangement. 2.2.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) grossly erred in upholding the stand of the Assessing Officer that since the Appellant did not have the intention of carrying on business, the assets of the Appellant ceased to be commercial assets. 3. Re: Treatment of other income amounting to Rs. 3,86,542/- as income from other sources: 3.1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in holding the contention of the AO by treating other income of Rs. 3,86,542/- as income from other sources. 4. Re: Disallowance of expenditure pertaining to the busin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pholding incorrect working of book profit u/s 115JB. 3. At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee mentioned that there is a delay of 65 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard he brought our attention to the affidavit dated 13.4.2012 filed by the Managing Director of the assessee and read out the relevant contents of the same which read as under: "1..... 2...... The CIT (A) passed the order dated 30.11.2011 which was received on 14.12.2012 by Mr. Sanjay Diwedi and the same was passed on to Mr. Prashant Shelar, Accounts Officer of the Appellant Company. Mr. Prashant Shelar left the company on 3.2.2012 and failed to handover the said order to the tax advisors / Senior Executives for f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d "income from other sources‟. Matter travelled to the CIT (A). 6. During the proceedings before the CIT (A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the decision of the CIT (A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. During the proceedings before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee filed a copy of the orders of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case vide ITA No.9039/M/2010 (AY 2006-07) dated 10.7.2013 and ITA No.9240/M/2010 (AY 2007-2010) dated 15.7.2014, wherein the identical issues were adjudicated by the Tribunal and the issues were remanded to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in both the years. 8. On the other ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowance of expenditure pertaining to business activities, this ground was argued to consequential in nature. The Ld. 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. The Ld. Assessing Officer is directed to examine the factual matrix and after giving opportunity to the assessee to decide afresh, consequently, allowed for statistical purposes. 4. The next ground pertains to set off of business loss of earlier years. This ground was also argued to be consequential in nature. The Ld. Assessing Officer is directed ....