TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 1070X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irected against the order of the CIT(A)-II, Baroda dated 11th September, 2009 for A.Y.2006-07. The learned representatives of the both the parties submitted that the issues are common in all the gross appeals, therefore, the same were heard together and are disposed of through this common consolidated order. 2. We have heard learned representatives of both the parties and perused the findings of the authorities below and considered the material available on record. The learned counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the issues are mostly covered by the order of the ITAT, Ahmedabad C Bench in the case of both the assessee in A.Y.2004-2005 dated 19-12-2008 in ITA No.4516/ahd/2007, 17/Ahd/2008, 4517/Ahd/2007 and 18/Ahd/2008. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. The view of the CIT(A) is also confirmed by the Tribunal dismissing the department s appeal. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this ground of the appeal of the Revenue, the same is accordingly dismissed. There is no other issue in the department s appeal, the same is accordingly. 5. On ground no.1 of the CO of the assessee, the assessee has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in taxing the transaction in shares/securities/mutual funds under the head Income from business or profession instead of Income from Capital Gains as claimed by the assessee. The learned CIT(A) noted in the impugned order that for A.Y.2004-2005, the short term capital gain disclosed by the assessee, the mutual fun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view in the case of the same assessee. The facts are identical in both the assessment years, therefore, the decision in the case of the same assessee on same facts is best precedent to be followed. Considering the above facts, we find that the issue is covered against the assessee by the order of the ITAT (supra). Accordingly, we dismiss this ground of the CO of the assessee. 7. On Ground No.2 of the CO, the assessee challenged disallowance of legal and professional charges amounting to ₹ 7,90,200/- invoking the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The assessee challenged the disallowance amounting ₹ 10,72,435/- before the learned CIT(A) which amount was paid to the assessee s son Mr. Moulik Mehta. The AO found that M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On Ground No.3 of the CO, the assessee challenged the disallowance of ₹ 8,63,042/- on account of repairs and maintenance to plant machinery. The learned CIT(A) noted that the assessee has claimed expenditure of ₹ 49,25,759/- as repairs to machinery, building and others. The AO noted the details of the payment on the heads which are reproduced in the appellate order. Further, the bifurcation of the expenditure incurred and the reasons for disallowances have been categorized in the reply of the assessee as A to D . The explanation of the assessee is also noted in the impugned order. The AO disallowed ₹ 13,39,259/- on this issue. The learned CIT(A) considering the explanation of the assessee and details of the expenditure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any structure would be done to improve the conditions and would result in enduring benefit to the assessee. No other reasons have been given for rejecting the claim of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned order as per Section 250(6) of the IT Act. In the preceding assessment year, 2005- 2206, the Tribunal noted the fact that the assessee incurred expenses in repairs of 2 DG sets. However, the facts are not identical in assessment year under appeal because fabrication charges were not found to be connected with repair to two DG sets. Since facts are not identical, as were considered in A.Y.2005-2006, the learned CIT(A) has not passed any reasoned order on the matter in issue, therefore, we set aside the order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15 of the order dated 19-12-2008. Since the Tribunal decided the issue against the assessee in A.Y.2004-2005 (supra) and that the issue is now covered by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Liberty India (supra), we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). We confirm the same and dismiss this ground of the assessee s CO. No other arguments were made before us. In the result, department s appeal is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. ITA No.3302/Ahd/2009 with CO No.14/Ahd/2010 12. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in reversing the findings of the AO, in that the long term capital gain offered by the assessee on sale of shar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
