TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequent assessment year could not have disallowed the same. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in deleting the disallowance - Decided in favour of assessee Set off prior period expenditure - Held that:- No error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in accepting the alternative plea and directing the AO to set off prior period of expenditure of ₹ 15,25,746/. The learned Tribunal has directed the Assessing Officer to set off assessee’s prior period of expenditure and income as per the law. Therefore, necessary consequence shall follow. Under the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. Question B is also held agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment year and therefore, thereafter it will not be open for the department in the subsequent year to disallow the preliminary expenditure under Section 35 D of the Act, the learned Tribunal has deleted the disallowance of ₹ 10.,28,028/being preliminary expenditure under Section 35 D of the Income Tax Act. It is not in dispute that in the preceding assessment year, very expenditure stand accepted. The issue is squarely covered against the revenue in light of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Shasun Chemicals Drugs Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income TaxII, Chennai reported in (2016) 243 Taxman 47/73 taxman.com 293(SC). In the said decision also, the issue was with respect to claim under Section 35 D of the Act and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailed in proving crystallization of the impugned expenditure. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this crystallization plea based in the course of arguments before us. The second substantive ground fails. At this stage, the assessee raises an alternative argument that it is entitled to set off prior period income ₹ 7,55,575/against the above stated prior period expenditure. The relevant grounds pleaded are third and fourth before us. Its case is that when the department had taxed its prior period income, it is entitled for set off of the same. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Exxon Mobil Lubricant Pvt Ltd (2010) 8 Taxmann. Com 249 (Delhi) holds that if an assessee has shown prior period inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|