TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or no interference. Hence the application is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is not admitted - G.A.NO.2731 OF 2015, ITAT 122 OF 2015 - - - Dated:- 9-10-2015 - Hon'ble SOUMITRA PAL AND Hon'ble MIR DARA SHEKO, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr.R.N.Bandyopadhyay, Advocate Mr.Prithu Dhudhoria, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr.J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Advocate Mr.A.K.Dey, Advocate Mr.P.Bag, Advocate The Court : This application has been filed by the appellant under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for admitting the appealpreferred from the order dated 23rd January, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal A Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.892/Kol/2014 for the assessment year 2007-08 on the following substantial questions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant portion of which is as under: 2. Subsequently, on examination of the assessment records, it reveals that the assessee company had claimed a deduction of ₹ 40165333/- on account of lease rental paid for motor car taken on finance lease and the same was allowed in the assessment. Further scrutiny revealed that the assessee company, as an accounting practice, treated the motor cars taken on lease as fixed assets in its books of accounts but claimed the lease payment as revenue expenditure for income tax purposes. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessing officer had disallowed the assessee s claim in the A.Y. 2003-04 and treated the same as capital expenditure. Since the leave rentals paid for motor cars take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant portion of the said order is set out hereunder: 8. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is noticed that the AO before allowing the claim of the assessee on account of lease rental issued a questionnaire along with notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. The assessee furnished the requisite details and evidences to the AO, who on being satisfied allowed the claim of the assessee is also noticed that for AY 2006-07 the similar issue was before the DRP, who a directed the AO to delete the similar disallowance. In the present case, the Ld. CIT(A) on the similar issue for AY 2004-05 and 2005-06 has deleted the addition made by AO. Therefore, it can be said that the view taken by AO was one of the possible view so it cannot be said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act it was referred to the Dispute Resolution Panel (For short DRP). After directions were issued by DRP, the Assessing Officer in conformity with the directions, had passed the orders. These facts, as evident from paragraph 10 of the impugned order, had weighed with the Tribunal in passing the order in favour of the assessee. Further, from the order passed under Section 263 we find that the CIT did not record as to why the order passed by the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It had simply directed the Assessing Officer to examine the matter after calling the lease document which had already been considered and examined by the Assessing Officer. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
