Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 420 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance as amortization expenditure of leasehold land - assessee had incurred an expenditure for gaining control over the property which was necessary to their smooth running of its hotel business, which expenditure was amortized and claimed as revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- Expenditure was amortized and claimed as revenue expenditure; and which was allowed by AO from A.Ys. 2003-04 to AY 2008-09; and thereafter in AY 2009-10 the AO took a view that the amount was capital in nature and disallowed the same which view was reversed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the revenue's appeal against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) got dismissed and the Tribunal was pleased to uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) thereby allowing the claim of the assessee - This view of the Tribunal has been followed in assessee's own case by the coordinate bench for AY 2012-13 also. Even though res judicata is not applicable for income tax proceeding, however, rule of consistency as a principle has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT (1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT), wherein theas held that if the facts permeating in the earlier years are the same and there is no change in facts and law, then the view taken earlier should not be disturbed by applying the principle of rule of consistency. This view has also been endorsed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High court in the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Motors Ltd. [1990 (2) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]. - Appeal of the assessee allowed.
|