TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed in limine. Deduction under section 145A - corresponding deduction u/s 145A on account of addition in the opening stock for the year not done - AY 2008-09 - Held that:- On perusal of the impugned order, we find that in the earlier year the ld. CIT(A) has given direction to the AO that adjustment should made to the opening stock also in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mahavira Aluminum Ltd [2007 (11) TMI 41 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI]. Such a direction is to be carried out by the AO and consequential relief should be given. Thus ground no.1 is disposed off in the aforesaid manner. Deduction of proportionate Land Premium - Held that:- The assessee had taken a land on leasehold bases in the year 1994-95 for a period of 80 years for a sum of ₹ 8,35,452/-. Each year the assessee is claiming 1/80th part of the lease premium as a deduction. The issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mukund v. JCIT [2007 (2) TMI 358 - ITAT MUMBAI]. Decided against assessee. Non-granting of MAT credit - Held that:- The tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments remains with me and actually not got signed from Managing Director and in natural corollary had not filled before Tribunal. 6. That our tax consultant, while going through the appeal paper of subsequent year i.e. AY 2008-09, which is fixed before ITAT on 25 July 2012, asked for the appeal papers filed before Hon'ble ITAT for AY 2007-08 as one of the ground in AY 2008- 09 was inter related with the ground in AY 2007-08. 7. That when I have gone through the records, it came to my knowledge that appeal was remained to be filed due to oversight. 8. That there is an unintentional delay in filing of appeal and no undue benefit or advantage is taken from the delay in filing of appeal. 9. That delay of 368 days, which is attributable to me, kindly be condoned. 10. That I was reprimanded for not filling the appeal before the Hon ble ITAT for AY 2007-08 within the due date prescribed. 11. That this affidavit is made to put on record the facts. I say the whatever is stated hereinabove is true to my knowledge and belief 3. It is seen that the affidavit has been filed by the Accountant of the assessee who has made an affirmation on oath that due to his oversig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2007-08 is dismissed in limine. 4. Now coming to the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 12, Mumbai [CIT(A)']: 1. Deduction under section 145A of the Act for ₹ 28,49,027/- a. erred in not allowing the corresponding deduction under section 145 A of the Act as additions in the value of opening stock for the year, as the adjustment was made under section 145A of the Act to value of closing stock for the preceding AY 2007-08 in the course of Assessment Proceedings; b. should have appreciated that closing stock of AY 2007-08 invariably becomes the opening stock of the AY 2008-09; 2. Deduction of proportionate Land Premium ₹ 8,83,402/- a erred in confirming the action of the AO on allowability of proportionate lease rental paid to MIDC of ₹ 8,83,402/-. b. failed to appreciate that the lease premium paid to MIDC is in the form of advance rent for tenure of lease and proportionate write off is towards rent paid to MIDC. c. failed to appreciate that the land was not acquired ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8,35,452/-. Each year the assessee is claiming 1/80th part of the lease premium as a deduction. The assessee had relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., (225 ITR 802) and the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Sun Pharmaceutical Inds. Ltd. (227 CTR 206). On a query from the Bench, the learned counsel for the assessee, though not leaving his ground, admitted that the issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mukund v. JCIT (106 ITD 231)(SB). The first appellate authority applied the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal and confirmed the disallowance. We respectfully following the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal, uphold the order of the first appellate authority and dismiss Ground No.2. 7. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, which is applicable in this year also, we following the same, confirm the order of ld. CIT(A) on this score and dismiss the ground raised by the assessee. 8. In ground No.3, the assessee has challenged non-granting of MAT credit of ₹ 26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
