TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - HELD THAT:- The claim of the assessee that the purchases were accepted in the earlier years and the income was offered for taxation in the earlier year and therefore it should have been accepted, this ground also deserves to be rejected for the reason that assessee has failed to produce any evidence with respect to the sale of the securities. Accordingly, all the grounds with respect to the disallowance are dismissed. Disallowance of bad debts - HELD THAT:- Assessee is engaged in the business of money lending, it is also proved that the above amount could not be recovered, therefore according to us it satisfies all the conditions of allowability of bad debt in case of finance business. Merely certain deficiencies in the documents cannot be used to deny the claim of bad debt. In view of this we direct the learned assessing officer to delete the disallowance of amount of bad debt claim - We also direct the learned AO to look into the amount which is been claimed by the assessee, disallowed by the learned AO, raised in grounds of appeal before the learned CIT A and amount of written by CIT A in his order. Therefore, the correct amount deserves to be identified and to be al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - HELD THAT:- AO disallowed the same is no details of steps taken to recover the above amount were shown. The facts clearly show that this amount has been written off by the assessee in its books of account and claimed as bad debt. The undisputed facts also show that assessee in the business of loans and advances and financing of assets through hire purchase. Identical issue arose in the case of the assessee for assessment year 99 2000 wherein we have allowed the claim of such bad debts as per ground number 5. Therefore, we allow the claim of that that the assessee reversing the orders of the lower authorities. Disallowance of depreciation - HELD THAT:- We have dealt with this issue in the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 99 2000 wherein we have set-aside the whole issue back to the file of the learned assessing officer in accordance with the order of the coordinate bench in earlier years in assessee s own case. Therefore, according to that ground number 4 is restored back to the file of the learned assessing officer. Rejection of method of accounting followed by the assessee - HELD THAT:- We find that the method of accounting change by the assessee freque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substantiate the same either u/s 36 or u/s 28-29 in absence of adequate details. Therefore, it cannot be said that claim of the assessee is inaccurate. Order passed by the Learned AO u/s 271 (1) (C) of the act levied the penalty for the reason that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income with respect to claim of bad debts - CIT-A on appeal also confirmed the same. On carefully looking at the facts of the case we find that merely because, the addition has been confirmed by the appellate authorities, it cannot be said that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. On the merits, the claim of the assessee is rejected. Merely because of the same, when the claim is not found to be unsustainable in law, the penalty deserves to be deleted. Accordingly, we direct the learned assessing officer to delete the penalty. Disallowance of interest - assessee has advanced interest free loan to 1 of its entities wherein the AO disallowed interest - HELD THAT:- Identical issue arose in the case of the assessee in earlier years wherein we have held that this amount is pertaining to outstanding interest receivable from that party. It is not the advance whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2, 490/M/2008, 488/M/2013, 1919/M/2009, 489/M/2013, 6075/M/2009, 6146/M/2011, 6147/M/2011 - - - Dated:- 29-8-2022 - Sri Amit Shukla J M Prashant Maharishi AM For the Assessee : Shri Vipul Joshi, Advocate For the Assessing Officer : Mr. Praveen Shekhar Sr AR JUDGMENT PER BENCH 01. This is bunch of 16 appeals filed by CIFCO Finance Ltd (the assessee/appellant) and the Asst Commissioner of income tax (OSD II) Central range 7, Mumbai from assessment year 99 2000 to 2008-09. All these appeals involved common issues. Both the parties argued this matter together, therefore, for the sake of brevity and compositeness all these appeals are disposed of by this common order. 02. These appeals are listed hereunder:- SR No. ITA number assessment year filed by Particulars 1 2323/M/2016 1999 2000 AO 143 (3) 2 2496/M/2006 1999 2000 Assessee 143 (3) 3 2497/M/2006 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner Of Income Tax [ The ld AO] in ITA number 2323/M/2006 against the appellate order passed by The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Central V, Mumbai [ the ld CIT (A)] dated 18/1/2006. By that order appeal filed against the order passed u/s 143 (3) of the act on 14th/3/2000 to passed by the Deputy Commissioner of income tax (OSD II), Central range, 7, Mumbai was partly allowed. 04. The brief facts of the case show that assessee is a public limited company assessed to tax since last several years. It is engaged in the business of leasing/higher purchase another finance related business. It filed its return of income on 31/12/1999 at a loss of ₹ 28,796,247/ . The assessment was made u/s 143 (3) of the act on 14th of March 2002 at a total income of ₹ 14,613,766/ . The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT A who disposed of the appeal of the assessee wide order dated 16/4/2002. Therefore, both the parties are aggrieved preferred these appeals. 05. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- i. on the facts and in law, the Commissioner of income tax (appeals), Central B, Mumbai erred in confirming disallowance of reversal of le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming addition made rejecting bona fide change in method of accounting xii. on the facts and in law, the CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the change in method of accounting was in conformity with the accounting standard as prescribed by the Institute of chartered accountants of India and Prudential norms prescribed by the reserve bank of India and thereby erred in confirming addition made rejecting change in method of accounting xiii. the CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had clearly brought out that the change in method of accounting was for a bona fide reasons and thereby erred in confirming addition made on account of change in method of accounting xiv. On the facts and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowance of ₹ 3 lakhs in respect of interest taxed not paid u/s 43B of the act. 06. The assessing officer in ITA number 2323/M/2006 has raised following grounds of appeal:- on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in directing the AO to bifurcated the payment of lease rentals received from parties kores India Ltd and Prakash industries Ltd to principal an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical disallowance was confirmed as assessee was not registered as an NBFC. He further held that the guidelines of the RBI has nothing to know with the determination of income which is to be done in accordance with the accounting followed by the assessee and the provisions of the income tax act. He further held that the guidelines issued by the reserve bank of India did not have any purpose to overrule or supersede the provisions of the income tax act. Accordingly, the addition was upheld. 09. Before us, learned authorised representative submitted that this ground is identical to the ground of the appeal of assessee in ITA number 4046/M/2005. Coordinate bench in order dated 13/10/2021 has passed the order directing the assessing officer that if the amount is not taxed in the year in which same was offered as a income, plea of the assessee to not to press this ground in this appeal was accepted. He submitted that identical direction might be given to the learned assessing officer. 10. The learned departmental representative did not object to the same. 11. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities as well as the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The learned authorised representative reiterated the same facts before us and the learned departmental representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. 14. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The facts are simply stated shows that assessee has purchased government securities of State development loans 2004 for Rs.43 lakhs of face value at a price of ₹ 4,579,500/- from one Mr. Sanjeev Aggarwal and Co of Jay per as per their bills dated September 29, 1997. In that year the sum of ₹ 279,794/ were shown as an income. During this year the assessee sold the same securities back to Sanjeev Aggarwal and Co and has claimed a short-term capital loss of ₹ 397,451/ . As the securities were purchased including interest and now sold including interest, no interest was received by the assessee during this year, which was shown as income in assessment year 1998 1999, write was claimed as deduction. The assessee has complete details of the purchase of securities however, no document regarding the sale of the securities were produced. It was also noted by the learned CIT A assessee submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nditions of allowability of bad debt in case of finance business. Merely certain deficiencies in the documents cannot be used to deny the claim of bad debt. In view of this we direct the learned assessing officer to delete the disallowance of amount of bad debt claim of ₹ 4,44,757/ . We also direct the learned AO to look into the amount which is been claimed by the assessee, disallowed by the learned AO, raised in grounds of appeal before the learned CIT A and amount of written by CIT A in his order. Therefore, the correct amount deserves to be identified and to be allowed. These grounds of appeal with respect to the bad debts are allowed. 18. The next bunch of grounds of appeal relates to the disallowance of interest expenditure in respect of advances given to CIFCO travel private limited. The learned AO noted that assessee has given advance to the CIFCO travels private limited of ₹ 34.75 lakhs out of the interest-bearing funds and therefore the interest disallowance of ₹ 879,879/ was disallowed. On appeal before the learned CIT A the issue was decided without any reasoning and directed the AO to follow the direction of CIT A in assessment year 97-98. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h in the light of orders of the ITAT. This ground of appeal is allowed accordingly to that extent. 23. Ground number 8 and sub- set of those grounds deals with the rejection of change in the method of accounting. The fact shows that Assessee Company has changed its accounting system from accrual to cash system in respect of interest income. Up to assessment year 1996 97, the assessee followed cash system and with effect from 1 April 1996, it decided to follow the accrual system. Then again, for the relevant assessment year it has reverted earlier policy of accounting of interest overdue based on certainty of realization. In nutshell the assessee has changed the accounting system price in a period of three years that is it followed cash system of accounting, adopted Mercantile system of accounting and again from assessment year 1998 99 it reverted back to cash system for accounting. The AO rejected the same stating that frequent change in the method of accounting leads to escapement of income. Accordingly he made an addition of ₹ 10,536,566 being income under reported because of change in the method of accounting. 24. The assessee challenged the same before the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT A. As such, nothing was contended before us by the revenue. Accordingly, appeal of the learned AO is dismissed. 30. In the result for assessment year 99 2000 appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number 496/M/2006 is partly allowed and you ll filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 2323/M/2006 is dismissed. 2497/M/2006 2000 2001 Assessee 143 (3) 2341/M/2006 2000 2001 AO 143 (3) 31. Assessee filed return of income on 30/11/2000 declaring loss of ₹ 22,225,475/ which was assessed u/s 143 (3) of the act at a total loss of ₹ 84,09,705 . Several additions were made as in earlier assessment years which were challenged before the learned and CIT A, he passed an order on 16/1/2006 giving part relief to the assessee and therefore both the parties are in appeal before us. 32. The ground number 1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee are with respect to disallowance of reversal of lease rent of ₹ 507,300 made on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce with the order of the coordinate bench in earlier years in assessee s own case. Therefore, according to that ground number 4 is restored back to the file of the learned assessing officer. 35. Ground number 5 is with respect to the rejection of method of accounting followed by the assessee. This is identical to ground arose in case of the assessee for assessment year 1998 99. By that order the learned assessing officer has made the addition of ₹ 9,230,816/ . We find that the method of accounting change by the assessee frequently is the main reason for not accepting the same by the revenue authorities. However for assessment year 1998 1999 the coordinate bench has taken a view that the method of accounting adopted by the assessee in this year is bona fide and in accordance with the reserve bank of India norms. Therefore respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee s own case for assessment year 1998 1999 we also reject the orders of the lower authorities rejecting the change in the method of accounting and hence the addition of ₹ 9,230,816 is deleted. Accordingly, ground number five of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 36. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r found to be in existence or no evidence with respect to the fact that the assets were given on lease for the purposes of the business of the assessee. We find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench in case of assessment year 98 99 wherein for that year the coordinate bench followed the decision in earlier years. We have also stated so in our order for assessment year 99 2000 in the appeal of the assessee and set-aside the issue back to the file of the learned assessing officer. Therefore for the similar reasons, we also setaside ground number 2 of the appeal back to the file of the learned assessing officer to examine the issue afresh and grant depreciation if allowable on merits of the case. 43. Ground number 3 is with respect to the change in method of accounting by the assessee which was rejected by the learned assessing officer and confirmed by the learned CIT A. We find that identical issue arose in the case of the assessee for assessment year 1998 1999, wherein the coordinate bench as per detailed order, which has been followed by us in the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 1999 2000, held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect to the change in method of accounting made by the assessee, which was rejected by the lower authorities. We find that identical issue arose in the case of the assessee for earlier years i.e. assessment year 98 99, wherein ITAT giving detailed reasons has upheld that the change in the method of accounting followed by the assessee is bona fide, in accordance with the law and proper. We have also followed the same in the case of the assessee for assessment year 1999 2000. Therefore, we reverse the findings of the lower authorities and upheld the change in the method of accounting made by the assessee as bona fide, proper and in accordance with the law. Accordingly, ground number 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 49. In the result ITA number 2499/M/2006 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2002 03 is partly allowed. 487/M/2013 2003 2004 Assessee penalty u/s 271 (1) (C) 5462/M/2006 2003 2004 Assessee 143 (3) 50. ITA number 5462/M/2000 success filed by the assessee for assessment year 2003 04 against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find any reason to uphold the disallowance as the interest income has already offered for taxation in the earlier years and this amount is outstanding only with respect to that interest. We find that this is not an advance given by the assessee but merely an outstanding interest receivable. On this sum there was no disallowance made by the learned assessing officer in earlier years also. Therefore, the ground number 1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and AO is directed to delete the disallowance of ₹ 215,821 on account of interest free advances given to Acadia investment private limited amounting to ₹ 1,027,720/ . 55. Ground number 2 is with respect to the disallowance of depreciation of ₹ 110,698/ on assets either which have not been found in existence or which were not found to be used by the assessee for the purpose of its business. Identical issue is decided by the coordinate bench in assessee s own case for 1999 2000 wherein the issue is set aside to the file of the learned assessing officer following the orders of the coordinate bench in assessee s own case for earlier years. In view of this, we also set aside this ground of appeal back to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest and brokerage income already offered for taxation in the earlier years. The ground number 4 of the appeal is partly allowed. 58. Accordingly, ITA number 5462/M/2006 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2003 04 is partly allowed. 59. ITA number 487/M/2013 is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2003 04 against the penalty confirmed by the learned CIT A levied by the learned assessing officer u/s 271 (1) of the act of ₹ 4,206,590/ by the order dated 22/11/2012. 60. We have already stated the facts of the case in deciding the quantum appeal of the assessee. The penalty has been levied on disallowance of interest of ₹ 215,821/ , depreciation disallowed of ₹ 110,698/ , addition made on account of change in the method of accounting of ₹ 7,864,880/ and bad debts written off ₹ 3,862,997/ . 61. Out of the above addition, as per our order in the quantum appeal in ITA number 5462/M/2016 all additions are deleted except to the extent of partial disallowance of bad debts written off. Therefore, penalty with respect to those additions, which have been deleted in the quantum proceedings, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me, when the claim is not found to be unsustainable in law, the penalty deserves to be deleted. 66. Accordingly, we direct the learned assessing officer to delete the penalty for assessment year 2003 04. ITA number 407/M/2013 filed by the assessee against the confirmation of the penalty u/s 271 (1) (C) of the act is allowed. 7547/M/2012 2004 2005 Assessee 143 (3) read with Section 147 490/M/2008 2004 2005 Assessee 143 (3) 488/M/2013 2004 2005 Assessee penalty u/s 271 (1) (C) 67. ITA number 490/M /2006 is filed by assessee for assessment year 2004 05 against the order of the Commissioner of income tax (appeals) Central V, Mumbai dated 23/11/2007 wherein appeal filed against the order u/s 143 (3) on 19/12/2006 passed by the assessing officer was dismissed. 68. Assessee is aggrieved by raising the grounds against disallowance of interest of ₹ 215,821 in respect of advances given to Arcadia investment Ltd and on account of disallowance of depreci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier years, the interest disallowance of ₹ 215,821/ deserves to be deleted, accordingly reversing the orders of the lower authorities, ground number 1 of the appeal is allowed. 74. Ground number 2 is with respect to the disallowance of depreciation of ₹ 83,023/ this disallowance is with respect to the assets, which could not be found in existence or could not be found to have been given on hire purchase/lease in the ordinary course of business of the assessee. This issue arose originally in assessment year 1996 97. The coordinate bench in assessee s own case has dealt with this issue in earlier years. We have also followed the same while deciding the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 1999 2000. In that year, considering all the judgments of the coordinate benches in earlier years in case of the assessee, we have set-aside the whole issue back to the file of the learned assessing officer with a direction to decide it in accordance with the decisions of the coordinate bench. Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal is allowed to that extent. 75. Ground number 3 is with respect to the rejection of the change in method of accounting and consequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee against the order passed u/s 143 (3) read with Section 147 of the income tax act dated 28/12/2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of income tax (OSD II), Central range 7, Mumbai was dismissed. 82. Briefly the fact shows that assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2004 05 originally on 30/10/2000 for at a total loss of ₹ 7,566,870/-. This was assessed u/s 143 (3) on a total loss of ₹ 920,100/ on 19/12/2006. Subsequently on verification of the case record, the learned assessing officer found that the assessee followed the cash system of accounting from assessment year 98 99 however no addition has been made on account of accrual of interest on lease and hire purchase that. Therefore, notice u/s 148 of the act was issued on 28/3/2011. Consequently accrued interest on debtors of ₹ 14,165,982/ was added to the total income of the assessee as per order dated 28/12/2011 passed u/s 143 (3) read with Section 147 of the act. The assessee objected before the learned assessing officer the validity of the initiation of reassessment proceedings stating that it is a change of opinion. The AO rejected such objection in the assessment order itself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the act dated 17/12/2007 by the Asst Commissioner of income tax, Central range, 7, Mumbai is partly allowed. 88. The assessee is aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT A and has challenged the same on account of confirmation of disallowance of interest of ₹ 215,821/ on amount of advances given related parties, disallowance of depreciation amounting to ₹ 62,267/ and rejection of the change in the method of accounting and making an addition of ₹ 7,815,641/ confirmed by the learned CIT A. 89. Assessee filed its return of income on 20/10/2005 (wrongly mentioned by the learned assessing officer as 30/10/2004) at a loss of ₹ 7,053,823/ . The return of assessee was picked up for scrutiny and it was found that as in last year there is an advanced given to Arcadia investment Ltd of ₹ 1,027,720 on which the learned assessing officer computed interest at the rate of 21% and disallowed a sum of ₹ 215,821/ out of the interest expenditure. As some of the assets were not found in existence and it was not known whether same are used by the assessee in its leasing business or not with respect to 4 different parties. The interest has been co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee. We find that identical issue arose in the case of the assessee for assessment year 1998 1999 wherein the coordinate bench held that the change in the method of accounting made by the assessee is proper, in accordance with the law, and as per the direction of the reserve bank of India. Therefore respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench for assessment year 1998 1999 we allow ground number 3 of the appeal and direct the learned assessing officer to delete the addition of ₹ 7,815,641/ . 95. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2005 06 in ITA number 1919/M/2009 is allowed. 489/M/2013 2006 2007 Assessee penalty u/s 271 (1) (C) 6075/M/2009 2006 2007 Assessee 143 (3) 96. ITA number 6075/M/2009 is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 07 against the order passed by the Commissioner of income tax (appeals) 40, Mumbai dated 18/9/2009 wherein the assessee is aggrieved with the additions confirmed by the learned CIT A with respect to (1) disallowance of interest expendi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arose before us for assessment year 1999 2000, we have set-aside this issue back to the file of the learned assessing officer to decide the issue in accordance with the direction of the coordinate bench. With similar directions we also set-aside ground number 2 of the appeal. 102. Ground number 3 of the appeal is with respect to the rejection of the change in the method of accounting made by the assessee by the lower authorities and thereby making an addition of ₹ 7,737,131. We find that identical issue arose in case of the assessee for assessment year 1998 2000 wherein the coordinate bench has held that the change in method of accounting made by the assessee is bona fide, proper, in accordance with the law and in accordance with the directions of the reserve bank of India. Accordingly, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench, we direct the learned assessing officer to delete the disallowance/addition of ₹ 7,737,131/ and allow ground number 3 of the appeal. 103. Ground number 4 of the appeal is with respect to the disallowance of ₹ 397,332/ on account of amount of written off. Fact shows that assessee has claimed the above sum as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12/2009. Such additions were i. disallowance of interest of ₹ 215,821/ relying on the orders of the earlier assessment years, ii. disallowance of depreciation of ₹ 35,025/ on the basis of the earlier assessment years, iii. addition on account of change in the method of accounting rejected by the assessing officer and making an addition/disallowance of ₹ 7,737,171, iv. disallowance of amounts written off , v. not adjudicating the claim of the assessee that the amount credited in respect of reversal of lease rent and hire purchase income is not taxable for the reason that same is already taxed in earlier years, vi. Rejecting the claim of the assessee that the amount written back as waiver of principal amount state bank of India is not taxable on the ground that no such claim was made in the return of income. 109. The brief facts of the case show that assessee filed its return of income on 24 10 2007 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The assessment u/s 143 (3) of the act was made on 14/12/2009 at ₹ 38,636,457 . The assessment was challenged in appellate proceedings before the learned CIT A passed an order on 8/6/2011. Assessee, ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in earlier years. Accordingly, ground number 1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and AO is directed to delete the disallowance of ₹ 215,821. 114. Ground number 2 is with respect to the disallowance of depreciation of ₹ 35,021/ based on the orders of earlier assessment years, which also arose in appeal of the assessee for earlier years wherein we have deleted the disallowance and matter was restored back to the file of the learned assessing officer to determine the disallowance on the merits of the case as per the direction of the coordinate bench in earlier years. Therefore, for the similar reasons set-aside this ground of appeal back to the file of the learned assessing officer. 115. Ground number 3 is with respect to the addition of ₹ 7,737,171/ on account of rejection in the change in the method of accounting. This issue arose in the case of the assessee for assessment year 1998 1999, wherein the coordinate bench held that the change in the method of accounting adopted by the assessee is bona fide, proper, in accordance with the law and guidelines issued by the reserve bank of India. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the coordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ider the above and reduce the taxable income by some of ₹ 12,719,687/ being principal amount of loan due to state bank of India which was written back on account of one-time settlement with them. The assessee also submitted a copy of the resolution passed at the board meeting held on 3 September 2007 where there is a state bank of India cash credit account has been written back amounting to ₹ 19,327,008.14. It is apparent that when the assessment order was passed on 14th/12/2019 there is no mention of such amount. Therefore, it is apparent that the letter is dated 21 December 2019 whereas the assessment order was already passed on 14 December 2019. Therefore, naturally, there was nothing before the assessing officer at the time of passing of the order. Neither the claim was not made by filing revised return nor was not the claim available during the course of assessment proceedings even by letter. Therefore, this issue was agitated by assessee before the learned and CIT A who dealt with the same as per paragraph number 9 of his assessment order. Learned CIT A further noted that the letter is dated 21/12/2009, which was submitted on 22/12/2009 whereas the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned assessing officer that what was the one-time settlement amount agreed upon between the parties by submission of the documents and how it did not contain any element of interest. Accordingly additional ground is allowed and set-aside to the file of the learned assessing officer with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its claim for the AO. AO may examine the same and decide it in accordance with the law. 125. In the result ITA number 6146/M/2011 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007 08 is partly allowed. 6147/M/2011 2008 2009 Assessee 143 (3) 126. ITA number 6147/M/2011 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2008 09 against the order passed by the learned CIT A 40, Mumbai dated 8/6/2011 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s 143 (3) of the act dated 1/12/2010 by the learned assessing officer is dismissed. Therefore assessee is aggrieved on 4 different points as Under:- i. disallowance of interest expenditure of ₹ 215,821/ based on findings in earlier assessment years ii. disallowance of depreciation of ₹ 26,270/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
