9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JM These are two appeals filed by the Revenue against the separate orders dated 06.06.2013 for 2009-10 and 2007-08 assessment years respectively on identical grounds except for the difference in amounts. For ready-reference we reproduced the grounds as under:- 1. "The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 27,70,798/- (Rs.19,43,143/- in ITA No.-5275/Del/2013) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's own case. Copies of the same were filed in the Bench however for the record the Ld. Sr. DR places reliance upon the assessment order. The relevant facts of the case as are emerging from the material available on record are that the assessee in the present proceedings who is engaged in the business of manufacturing of PVC profiles entered into an agreement with M/s Tokai Kagyo Co. Ltd., Japan to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2012 which followed the earlier order in ITA No-4257 & 4258/Del/2012 for 2006-07 & 2008-09 assessment years allowed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by which the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have taken ourselves through the orders of the Co-ordinate Bench which have been filed and seen that the finding given in the lead order for 2005-06 assessment year, has been foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me is not incurred for acquiring a process or design or technology which can be utilized by the assessee for years to come so as to categorize such expenditure, as capital in nature. Nothing was brought on record by the learned DR to controvert the findings of the CIT(A) recorded at pages 5 & 6 of appellate order. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) for allowing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
