TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground that the expenditure related to the pre-commencement of the business. However, the ld.CIT(A) deleted the disallowance. In the light of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. vs. Jt.CIT (2015 (3) TMI 853 - SUPREME COURT) and decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Ashima Syntex Ltd.(supra), we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. - Decided against revenue Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below as well as the judgement relied upon by the parties. There is no d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holding that the disallowance under provision of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, would be attracted only in respect of the 'payable' amount of expenditure as on 31st March of the relevant previous year. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 4) It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad may be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 2. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. vs. Jt.CIT in Civil Appeal Nos.6366-6368 of 2003, dated March 23, 2015. The ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention towards page No.20 of the said judgement. Further, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is also covered by the decision of Special Bench of this Tribunal [ITAT Ahmedabad Bench 'B' (Special Bench] rendered in the case of ACIT vs. Ashima Syntex Ltd. He also further relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench (ITAT A Bench Ahmedabad) rendered in the case of DCIT vs. M/s.Adani Retail Ltd. in ITA No.1311/Ahd/2011 for AY 2004-05, dated 24/04/2015. 4. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business loss and carried forward, will be adjusted against business profit. Hence, in both the cases there is no revenue effect. As per the A.O.'s contention that there is no business income and as per matching principal such expenditure be treated as per commencement of business expenditure is based on worng footing since the appellant has capitalized various expenditure as project expenses but since it follows project completion method income/loss embedded in such work in progress is not considered during previous year on account of accounting method followed by it. It is therefore A.O. is directed to delete the addition of ₹ 35,02,119 and ₹ 18,643, The appellant gets relief accordingly. In reference to disallowance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he expenditure related to the pre-commencement of the business. However, the ld.CIT(A) deleted the disallowance. In the light of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. vs. Jt.CIT(supra) and decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Ashima Syntex Ltd.(supra), we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. Thus, ground No.1 of Revenue's appeal is rejected. 5. Ground No.2 2(b) of the appeal is against deletion of disallowance of R.5,61,240/- made by the AO. The ld.Sr.DR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance by following the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT Vishakhapatnam in the case of M/s.Marilyn Ship ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
