TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Department is dismissed. Disallowance as prior period expenses - AO made the disallowance by relying upon the order passed in the preceding years in the Assessee s own case - CIT(A) had deleted the addition of the preceding years by relying on the decision of the Tribunal in Assessee s own case [ 2014 (11) TMI 1174 - ITAT DELHI] - HELD THAT:- No justification to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the Ground No. 2 of the Department is dismissed. - I.T.A. No. 8296/DEL/2019 - - - Dated:- 9-2-2023 - DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate; Shri Aman Garg, C.A.; For the Respondent : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. D. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 83,82,32,808.00 Add:- Disallowance u/s 14A 9,15,045.00 Book Profit u/s 115JB 84,11,47,853.00 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 25/03/2016, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the additions made by the A.O. vide order dated 23/07/2019. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 23/07/2019, the Department has preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 6. Ground No. 1 is against deleting the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act of Rs.29,15,045/-. The Ld. DR vehemently submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has committed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D of the Act. 09. In the appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) by relying on the orders of the earlier and subsequent years in Assessee s own case, deleted the additions made by the A.O. in following manners:- 5.2.3. On perusal of the facts of the case and the orders of the CIT(A) s and Hon ble ITAT quoted by the appellant in its written submission, it is noticed that there is no change in the facts of the case for the year under consideration in comparison to the earlier years and the subsequent years decided by the respective appellate authorities. The issue has already been decided in favour of the appellant that the interest paid on loan from Government of India and banks for working capital assistance has been spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 4668/Del/2017 2014-15 4 19/11/2014 2211/Del/2013 2009-10 11. For the ready reference, the order of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2015-16 in ITA No. 5524/Del/2018 dated 29/09/2022 in respect of the issue under consideration is reproduced hereunder:- 7. In regard to the issue in ground No. 1 it can be observed that the Id CIT(A) has taken into consideration the determination of issue in favour of the Assessee in the previous AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2014-15 from the Tribunal. The Assessee had given a tabulated information with regard to details of interest expenditure which have been reproduced by the Id.CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material available on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. The facts in brief are that during the year under consideration, the assessee has recorded prior period income of Rs.5462.21 Lakhs as against prior period expenses of Rs.8,81,44,000/- and net income of Rs.4580.77 Lakhs has been offered for taxation in the Profit Loss account. The assessee company claimed that the Company has been consistently following the policy of netting out prior period income with prior period expenses and these expenses may pertain to earlier periods but have crystallized only in the current year i.e. AY 2013-14 as under:- Prior Period Income- Prior Period expenses = Net Prior Period Income (Rs.5462.21 Lakhs- Rs.881.44 Lakhs = Rs.4580.77 Lakhs) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period expenses and the net effect was disclosed in the computation of income. It was also submitted that such a treatment was accepted by the Revenue for the AY 2007-08 and 2008-09. The First Appellate Authority has, on the principle of consistency, accepted the contentions of the assessee. We find no infirmity in the same. Thus ground no. 3 and 4 are dismissed 17. By considering the above facts and circumstances and also by following the principals of consistency, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the Ground No. 2 of the Department is dismissed. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 09th February, 202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
