ANTONY WASTE HANDLING CELL P.LTD, THANE JT CIT RG 1, THANE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND
SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

ITA No. 2056/MUM/2015
Assessment Year: 2010-11

M/s Antony Waste Handling
Cell Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No. 515, Maria Plaza,
Pokhran Road, No. 2, Maji Wade
Thane (W)-400601.
Appellant 

Vs.

ACIT-Circle-I
Thane
PAN No. AACCA9772C
Respondent

ITA No. 5566/MUM/2015
Assessment Year: 2011-12

M/s Antony Waste Handling
Cell Pvt. Ltd.,
Dev Corpora, Shree Ganesh
Mandir Mare, Cadbury Junction
Eastern Express Highway,
Thane (W)-400601.
PAN No. AACCA9772C
Appellant

Vs.

JCIT-Range-1,
6th Floor, Ashar I.T.
Park, Road No. 16-Z,
Wagle Industrial Estate
Thane-400604.
Respondent

Assessee by : Mr. Madhur Agrawal, AR
Revenue by : Mr. Michael Jerald, DR

Date of Hearing : 08/09/2020
Date of Pronouncement: 04/12/2020

ORDER

PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M.

The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against theorder of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Mumbai [in short ‘CIT(A)’] and arise out of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income TaxAct 1961 (the ‘Act’). As common issues are involved, we are proceeding to dispose them off through a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. We begin with the assessment year (AY) 2010-11.

2. The effective grounds of appeal filed by the assessee read as under:

1) On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming theaddition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.8,57,95,998/- being the deduction claimed under section 80-IA(4) of the Act being works contract under section 80- IA(13) of the Act.

2) On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred by rejecting the submission of appellant that as no new material was brought on record by AObefore disallowing the claim of deduction under section 80-IA(4) of Act, ittantamounts to change of opinion, further also rejecting the appellant’s submissionof the principle of consistency as deduction being allowed for last several years consistently by overlooking the principle of natural justice and tax jurisprudence.

3) On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred by denying the claim of the appellant as a work contract.

To know more in details find the attachment file