9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 2053X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. First we take up the Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 1227/Ahd/2017. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the interest of Rs. 6,09,54,788/- by treating it as business expenditure ignoring the fact on record that the transaction between Aditya Medisales Ltd. & M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries ltd. is not a transaction between 2 unrelated parties as the controlling person in both the company is same i.e. Mr. Dilip Shanghvi as per the Audit report u/s. 44AB in form 3CD for A.Y. 2012-13 submitted by the assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in partly allowing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral in nature. There is need no separate adjudication. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 9. Now coming to the assessee's appeal in ITA No. 1147/Ahd/2017. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- "1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as 'the learned CIT-(A)'] is bad in law and on facts. 2. Re: Disallowance of discount claim Rs.24,41,703/- 2.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the discount given to the doctors on the ground that same was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) failed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... computation of interest u/s. 234D. 5. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any ground of appeal." 10. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and there is no need to separate adjudication. 11. Ground No. 2 Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal of ITA No. 2548/Ahd/2015. 12. Ld. DR did not controvert this fact that the issue under consideration has already been decided against the Revenue. We find that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case in ITA No. 2548/Ahd/2015. The Revenue has not got any contrary binding precedent by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the ground raised by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
