TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of facts upheld the order of the Ld. CIT (A) in favour of the assessee though Rail Over Bridge is not in the name of the assessee but assessee has physical possession and right to collect the toll on the said bridge as relying on Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. CIT [1999 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court]. - Decided in favor of assessee. Prior Period Expenses - rebate on Toll Income - CIT (A) deleted the dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts was on the assessee company. 2. We have heard the parties. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the issue arising from ground no.1 is on Rail Over Bridge is covered in favour of the assessee in assessee s own case by the decision of the Tribunal in the A.Y. 2002-03. The Ld. Counsel also referred to the paper book where copy of the Tribunal order is placed. The Ld. CIT DR fairly conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in ITA No.155 of 2010 by judgment dated 28.02.2011 by dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue. 3. Ground no.2 reads as under:- 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in directing to delete the disallowance made by the A.O. of Prior Period Expenses (Rebate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave relief on rebate on Toll income, by following order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y.2002-03 (ITA No. 5612/Mum/07). Now, the revenue is in appeal before us. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has followed the Order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case. Hence, in our opinion no interference is called for on this issue in the order of the Ld. CIT (A). Accordingly ground no.2 is also dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
