9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VIII, New Delhi ('CIT(A)' in short) dated 12.06.2018 passed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2012-13. 2. As per the captioned appeal, the assessee has challenged; (i) the adjustment towards prior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... text, we find palpable merit in the plea of the assessee that there is no bar per se for claim of prior period expenses as revenue expenditure in appropriate factual matrix in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 94 Taxman 271 (SC). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jagjit Industries Ltd. (2010) 194 Taxman 158 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f fact or law has been committed by the officer passing the order becomes apparent from the record. Rectification is not possible if the question is debatable. Moreover, the point which was not examined on facts or in law cannot be dealt as mistake apparent on the record. The dispute raised a mixed question of fact and law." 5. In the light of the legal position noted above, the action of the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gue. It is contended that notwithstanding the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Exide Industries Ltd. (2020) 116 taxmann.com 378 (SC) upheld the constitutional validity of clause (f) of Section 43B, the Assessing Officer at the time of rectification carried out, could not have taken a view inconsistent with judgment of the Calcutta High Court more particularly under the nar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
