9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeals above and with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear all the appeals together and pass a consolidated order for the sake of brevity. 3. First we shall take up ITA No.615/Kol/2016 for Assessment Year 2002-03. 4. Heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide its order dated 31.03.2006 at a total loss of Rs. 1,88,78,736/-, thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued a notice dated 10.01.06 u/s 154/155 of the Act and rectified the mistake alleged to have been occurred in the original assessment proceedings wherein he added the prior period expenses and late payments of employees/employer's contribution towards PF to an extent o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is noted that the miscellaneous expenses including the preliminary expenses and pre-operative expenses, deferred revenue expenses and portal website development expenses. These expenses relate to earlier years which have been written off in accordance with statutory provisions. The CIT(A) examined the record and by referring to the practice being followed on a regular basis from year to year by the assessee deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The relevant portion of CIT(A) is reproduced hereinbelow: (i) Amortization of preliminary expenses: - preliminary expenses is being written off as prescribed in section 35D of Income Tax Act. (ii) Portal website development expenses: - The company had incurred the aforesaid cos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue is dismissed. 10. Now we shall take up ITA No.617/Kol/2016 for Assessment Year 2004-05. 11. Heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee filed application under Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rule 1963 and raised following ground: "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is not served within the stipulated time prescribed in the Act resulting in the reassessment order is without jurisdiction, opposed to requirement of law and bad in law." 12. With the consent of both the parties, we proceeded to hear the ground raised by the assessee under Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rule 1963. It is the contention o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
