9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 007-08. 2. The Revenue has proposed the following question of law for the consideration of this Court; "Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of the CIT (A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of capital grant being @ 15% of total grant of Rs. 25,000 Lacs?" 3. On the proposed substantial question of law, the CIT (Appeals) recorded the following findings; "The reasons for making disallowance of above amount of Rs. 872.91 lacs as mentioned by AO in the assessment order as well as above submission of the appellant have been considered. In this regard it is mentioned that my Ld. Predecessor i.e. CIT (A)-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing the set off of unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years against the interest income of Rs. 1,77,06,000/- assessed as Income from Other Sources. 4.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in law and on facts has set aside the restriction of the claim of carry forward of unabsorbed business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years by erroneously taking certain assessment orders of erstwhile GEB for the Asst. Yea-s 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 with the direction to re-verify the claim. 5.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in law and facts in charging interest under section 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r consideration. Hence, the issue has become academic and virtual infructuous. Thus, dismissed. 24. Ground No.5 and 6: These grounds of appeals are consequential in nature and no separate adjudication is required." 5. We take notice of the fact that in the Tax Appeal No.63 of 2020 filed by the Revenue against the very same assessee, the very same question was proposed for the consideration of the Court as proposed in the present appeal. The question, as proposed, was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. We may refer to the relevant observations in the order passed by this Court dated 17th February, 2020 in the Tax Appeal No.63 of 2020. The same reads thus; "9 So far as question No.2[c] proposed by the Revenue is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cquired an fixed assets on which depreciation has been claimed, therefore, such grants cannot be reduced from cost of fixed asset of the assessee company. With the assistance of ld. Authorized representatives, we have gone through the material on record pertaining to the submission of the assessee stating that the assessee has not received any grant during the year and the grants received originally from the Govt. of Gujarat were apportioned against the subsidiary companies appropriate basis. In F.Y.200708, the State Government vide various GRS decided to convert the grant given during the F.Y. 2005-06 to 200708 for implementation of Jyoti Gram Yojna (JGY) into equity share capital. Accordingly, the total grants received during the aforesai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
