TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shares at the option of the bond holders at a future date and hence the said expenses ought to have been treated as capital expenditure by the Assessing Officer in original assessment proceedings? - Held that:- the impugned order of the Tribunal has followed its order in Mahindra & Mahindra (2013 (9) TMI 522 - ITAT, MUMBAI) which on merits held that the claim as made by the Respondent is allowab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 260A of the Incometax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 28 June 2013 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Revenue urges the following question of law for our consideration : (A) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Incometax Appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside the order pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 143(3) of the Act. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), however, was of the view that the order allowing an expenditure of ₹ 2.35 crores under Section 37(1) of the Act by Assessment Order dated 31 December 2008 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Consequently, by an order dated 28 March 2011, the CIT exercised his powers of Revision under Section 263 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The decision of the Tribunal in Mahindra Mahindra (supra) taking a different view itself establishes the issue at the very least is debatable. 6. We are of the view that the impugned order of the Tribunal has followed its order in Mahindra Mahindra (supra) which on merits held that the claim as made by the Respondent is allowable. Therefore, it co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
