TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal in ITA No. 7131/Mum./03 for assessment year 2001-02 which is directed against the order dated 31st July, 2003 of CIT(A), Mumbai. 4. The only ground raised in this appeal reads as under : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,89,634 being the expenses on replacement of carpet and linen which are in the nature of capital expenses." 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee pointed out that the issue was covered in favour of the assessee by various orders of the Tribunal in assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and placed copies of the Tribunal orders for these years on record. 6. The learned Departmental R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law, we see no reason to take a contrary view in the matter, hence, respectfully following the consistent view taken by various Benches of the Tribunal, we reject this ground of the revenue. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed. 10. Now, we shall take up assessee s appeal in ITA No. 7133/Mum./03 for assessment year 1998-99, which is directed against the order dated 31st July, 2003 of CIT(A), Mumbai. 11. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in holding that the assessee liable to pay surcharge on dividend tax and interest thereon though there was no provision for levy of surcharge on dividend tax under section 115-O for the year under consideration particularly w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vant year. The learned counsel also contended that rates for dividend distribution tax were specifically provided in both the Finance Acts, therefore, the assessee was liable to pay the tax only on that basis and no inference could be drawn for indirect application of surcharge or retrospective application thereof. The learned counsel also relied on the following decisions in this regard : 1.In the case of Satyabhushan v. Dy. CIT [2004] 1 SOT 872 (Bang.) 2.In the case of Om Prakash Sharma v. Dy. CIT [2005] 4 SOT 369 (Jp.) 3.In the case of Mrs. Arun M. Katara v. Dy. CIT [2004] 3 SOT 289 (Pune) 14. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, placed strong reliance on the order of the learned CIT(A). 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
