Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2024 (3) TMI 1330 - HC - Income TaxDisallowance of expenses written off - debts written off is only allowable if the assessee offers the same as income in previous years which the assessee failed to prove - ITAT deleted addition - HELD THAT - The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in TRF Limited 2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT and also Oman International Bank 2009 (2) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - there can be no substantial question of law on this issue. We have considered the same and also Mr. Suresh Kumar agrees. Additional grounds raised - expenses on windmill be allowed as Revenue expenditure - ITAT had restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for fresh consideration and AR/Assessee states the AO while giving effect to the order of the ITAT has allowed depreciation on windmills and therefore this will be a non-issue. Thus assessee agreed. Allowability of entertainment expenditure food subsidy coupons disallowed u/s 37(2) expenses related payments to schools disallowad u s 40A(9) and advertisement expenditure (deferred revenue) as revenue expenditure - HELD THAT - Tribunal had relied on assessee s own case for AY 1996-97 and Revenue had not challenged the decision of the ITAT. Mr. Srihari submitted relying on the decision of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Excel Industries Ltd. Anr 2013 (10) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT that if question of law has not been raised or if the finding of the ITAT has been accepted by Revenue for a previous year in the subsequent year it cannot be raised. It appears from the record that in several assessment years the Revenue accepted the order of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and did not pursue the matter any further but in respect of some assessment years the matter was taken up in appeal before the Bombay High Court but without any success. That being so the Revenue cannot be allowed to flip-flop or the issue and it ought let the matter rest rather than spend the taxpayers money in pursuing litigation for the sake of it. Thus we dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.
|