9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1072X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITA No. 189/Chd/2007, relating to the assessment year 1997-98, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the disallowance of business loss claimed under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 5,08,02,633/- on account of damaged stock of paddy on the basis of auditors note/ certificate for the year under consideration and by ignoring the fact that amount realized on sale of such damaged stock in subsequent years have been taken as income as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 as duly accepted in the respective assessment under scrutiny u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 which would lead to double taxation? ii) Whet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the said questions stand covered by the decision of this Court in CWP No. 3241 of 1999 (Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Union of India and others). On 13.8.2014, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for time to amend questions No. (i) and (ii) and filed the amended substantial question of law which is to the following effect:- Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the disallowance of business loss claimed by the appellant of Rs. 5,08,02,633/- on account of damaged stock of paddy on the basis of auditors note/certificate for the year under consideration by erroneously holding that no evidence was brought on record to prove the said stock being dama ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act, the SLP has been accepted by the Supreme Court vide order dated 3.9.2012 (Annexure A-4). Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity "the CIT(A)"]. The CIT(A) vide order dated 7.12.2006 (Annexure A-2) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Still dissatisfied, the assessee approached the Tribunal by way of an appeal and also submitted written submissions, Annexure A-8. The Tribunal vide order dated 29.8.2013 (Annexure A-3) rejected the claim of the assessee. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that certain amount out of the damaged stock of paddy of Rs. 5.08 crores was recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
