2018 (4) TMI 1984 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of expense being capital in nature - ITAT deleted addition - HELD THAT - We notice that similar question came up for consideration before this Court in 2015 (2) TMI 331 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT question was rejected by an order. Addition made u/s 36(1)(iii) - ITAT deleted addition - HELD THAT - Similar issue was considered by this Court in 2015 (1) TMI 1348 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . Question was rejected. Disallowance u/s 35(2AB) - ITAT deleted addition - HELD THAT - We notice that similar issue had come up before this Court in 2015 (1) TMI 1348 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , this question was rejected.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Questions raised for consideration:
A. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance of expense being capital in nature.
B. Deletion of addition made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
C. Deletion of addition made on account of disallowance under section 35(2AB) of the Act.
D. Ignoring discrepancies in reconciliation figures submitted by the assessee.

Analysis:
1. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Revenue raised several questions for consideration, including the deletion of additions related to expenses being capital in nature, section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, and section 35(2AB) of the Act, along with discrepancies in reconciliation figures submitted by the assessee.

2. In addressing question A, the Court noted a similar issue previously considered in Tax Appeal No. 40 of 2015, where the question was rejected by an order dated 23.01.2015. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal on this ground.

3. Regarding question B, a similar issue was examined in Tax Appeal No. 39 of 2015, resulting in the rejection of the question by an order dated 23.01.2015. The Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal concerning this matter as well.

4. Similarly, in relation to question C, the Court observed a comparable issue in Tax Appeal No. 39 of 2015, where the question was also rejected in an order dated 23.01.2015. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal on this basis too.

5. Question D was considered to be a mere contention supporting question C. The Court found that it did not present a separate issue warranting independent consideration. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

6. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decisions of the previous orders and dismissed the Tax Appeal, emphasizing the consistency in rejecting the questions raised by the Revenue across various cases, leading to the dismissal of the appeal in its entirety.