9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was singed by Shri S.S. Rana in his capacity at Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 16, Mumbai; at any rate no objection with regard to this clerical mistake was raised by the assessee and therefore we proceed to dispose of these appeals on merits. 3. The only issue involved in these appeals being identical we proceed to dispose of these appeals by a combined order for the sake of convenience. 4. The expenditure incurred by the assessee company referable to increase in share capital was claimed as deduction on the ground that section 44 read with First Schedule of the Act comes into play and such claim is permissible whereas the AO as well as the CIT(A) are of the opinion that any expenditure relatable to increase in the authorised s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court cited supra. Further aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 6. At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there was an increase in share capital in each year and the expenditure was incurred with regard to the increase in share capital and an identical issue was considered by the ITAT "B" Bench, Mumbai in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2004-05 (ITA No. 602/Mum/2009 dated 09.09.2010) wherein the Bench had taken into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts cited by the AO as well as the CIT(A) but chose to follow the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT 51 ITR 773 to hold that provisions of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. In the light of the decision of the ITAT (cited supra) we are of the view that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the assessee deserves to be accepted. By respectfully following the decision of the ITAT "B" Bench, Mumbai in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2004-05 we direct the AO to allow the claim of deduction. 9. In the result, ground No. 1 of the assessee, in all the three appeals, is allowed. 10. The assessee, vide letter dated 4th November, 2011, filed one additional ground, for all the three years, requesting the Tribunal to consider the loss from Pension Fund while determining the surplus/(deficit) from the insurance business for the purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee is that in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. the Apex Court was concerned with the scope and ambit of section 139(4) i.e. beyond the period of limitation prescribed if an assessee makes a claim such claim cannot be considered by the AO but at the same time a new ground urged before the Appellate Authority always also be considered in the light of the power vested in the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Act and in this regard he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P. Ltd. 349 ITR 336. 13. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. ITAT Mumbai Benches have been consistently taking a view that the Tribunal is em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
