TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of this Tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment year 2006-07. Placing a copy of the order in I.T.A. No. 457/Mds/2010 dated 25th June, 2010, assessee submitted that grounds raised in the impugned assessment year was similar to the grounds raised in assessment year 2006-07 and hence the order of the Tribunal would be binding on the Revenue. 3. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue are reproduced hereunder:- 2.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred allowed the assessee s appeal on its claim to assess only 1/8th of membership receipt during the year. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that such a claim was not made either in the return of income or in the revised return of income. 2.3 Having regard to the decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s refundable and part of it was nonrefundable and the order of the Tribunal for assessment year 2006-07 relied on by the assessee will be applicable only for refundable membership fees. As per the learned D.R., the order of the CIT(Appeals) for the impugned assessment year was relevant to current year membership fees only. Further, according to him, amortization was not considered by this Tribunal in its order for the earlier years. 5. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. In so far as ground Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, these are similar to the grounds raised by the Revenue for assessment year 2006-07. In its order dated 25th June, 2010 after considering ground Nos.2 and 3 of the Revenue, this Tribunal in I.T.A. No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above two grounds since no facts which are different from the earlier year has been brought out by the Revenue. Accordingly, ground Nos. 2 and 3 stand dismissed. 7. Ground No.4 raised by the Revenue reads as under:- 4.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the insurance premium paid of ₹ 6,44,64,227/- during the year. 4.2 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that such a claim was not made either in the return of income or in the revised return of income. 4.3 Having regard to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323) and the Hon'ble Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in the case of Jay Bharat Co-op. Housing Society (125 ITD 90), the CIT(A) ought to have confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment year 2005-06 filed against revenue s appeal in ITA No.1637/Mds/09 for that year. So, accepted position is that only the insurance claim for the relevant year was allowed to the assessee. If that be so, for the impugned assessment year also assessee would be eligible for the claim of insurance premium debited during the relevant previous year. No doubt, assessee in its return of income, following the change of method of accounting adopted for the preceding assessment year, made a lesser claim, but if taken on actual payment basis, the sum allowable would be ₹ 7,22,41,243/- as admitted by Assessing Officer itself at paragraph 7 of the assessment order. So, we are of the opinion that the enhancement was correctly allowed by the CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
