TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1062X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial on record to demonstrate that the purchase of vehicle was not out of the funds of the Assessee and further the vehicle was not used for the purpose of business of the Assessee – assessee contended that no depreciation has been claimed by the Directors in their individual return – The order of CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against Revenue. - ITA No.1260/Ahd/2011, CO No.149/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2014 - Shri Mukul Kr. Shrawat And Shri N. S. Saini,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri J. P. Jhangid, Sr.D.R. For the Respondent : Shri P. M. Mehta, A.R. ORDER Per Shri Mukul Kumar Shrawat, Judicial Member Revenue is in Appeal and the Respondent-Assessee is in Cross- Objection arising from the order of learned CIT(A)-X ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation there is no fresh investment. Facts remaining the same for the assessment year under consideration. AO is directed to delete the disallowance made by him of ₹ 13,11,030/- u/s.14A of the Act. This ground of appeal is allowed. 3. With this brief factual background, we have heard both the sides. On one hand, the learned DR has supported the order of the AO but on the other hand, learned AR has pleaded that the issue is covered by an order of the Tribunal pronounced in assessee s own case. What we have noted that the learned CIT(A) has followed the verdict on this issue pronounced for A.Y. 2007-08. That order of learned CIT(A) was challenged by the Revenue Department before Hon ble ITAT. The Respected Co-ordinate Bench C in ITA N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following the decision of the Tribunal as cited supra, we hereby dismiss, this ground of the Revenue on the same lines as held in the past. Resultantly, Revenue s Ground is dismissed. 5. Ground No.2 is reproduced below: The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of depreciation on motor-car of ₹ 6,19,251/- 6. It was noted by the AO that the assessee had claimed depreciation on cars at ₹ 6,19,251/- it was found that the cars were registered in the name of Directors. The AO has denied the claim of the assessee that the cars were issued for the purpose of the business; therefore, entitled for the claim of depreciation. The claim of depreciation at ₹ 6,19,251/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st years, therefore, we find no reason to take any other view but to follow the same. Resultantly, this ground of the Revenue is also dismissed. 9. The respondent assessee has filed a CO and the ground is as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of ₹ 10,88,079/- on account of under valuation of closing stock of raw material. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that appellant has followed consistent method of valuation of closing stock and as there is no change in facts in current year. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition. 10. It was noted that the overhead expenses on purchase of raw material have not been considered for the purpose of va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
