TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deleted. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by respectfully following the order of the ITAT in assessee s own case. No contrary decision has been brought to our notice by the Ld. DR. Therefore, the issue involved in ground no. 1 is decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by dismissing the ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue. Bond Issue Expenses - HELD THAT:- This issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi in which Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the similar addition for assessment year 2007-08. The order is placed on record. No contrary decision has been brought to our notice by the Ld. DR. The nature of these expenses are that these are expenses incurred every year to meet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in holding that bond issue expenditure was revenue expense by ignoring provisions of section 35D(2) of the Income Tax Act (the Act)? 3. Whether in facts and on circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in allowing relief to the assessee on issues of prior period expense and bond expense on the basis of its order in the case of the assessee for the earlier assessment year without realizing that the issue involving factual verification cannot be decided on the basis of its decision for earlier assessment year based on peculiar facts of that year? 4. Whether in facts and on circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in allowing relief to the assessee on the basis of its earlier order i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the excess charges of interest of ₹ 15,85,12,000/- and assessed the total income at ₹ 6,79,64,040/- vide assessment order dated 31.3.2014 u/s. 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the same, assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 20.1.2017 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the same, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR argued the contentions raised by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal and requested that the assessment order be upheld and the impugned order may be cancelled. 4. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the assesee stated that as regards to the issue of expenditure of ₹ 10,50,324/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er years but crystallized only in current AY 2006- 07. Respectfully following the ITAT order on the same issue alongwith adjudication that these aren t expenses pertaining to earlier year s fully allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Act, the addition made by AO is deleted. This ground is therefore, allowed. 6. After going through the aforesaid finding, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by respectfully following the order of the ITAT in assessee s own case. No contrary decision has been brought to our notice by the Ld. DR. Therefore, the issue involved in ground no. 1 is decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by dismissing the ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue. 7. As regards the second i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
