9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (12) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, 1984, this Bench of the Tribunal had mentioned that a sum of Rs. 1,28,296.24 became due to the assessee from M/s Poddar Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Bombay under an Award which was made in the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1975-76. It was also held that since that Award had not become a rule of the Court, it could not be said to be final and no interest could be charged on that. On that basis for all the subsequent years the additions made for interest chargeable on this amount had been deleted by appellate authorities. For the asst. yrs. 1978-79 and 1979-80 this does not appear to have been challenged before the Tribunal. For the asst. yrs. 1980-81 and 1981-82, the learned CIT(A) deleted this amount on the basis of his order for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal. Although at the time of hearing, the learned Departmental Representative argued that the ITO had made the disallowance on the basis of the method laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. yet it could not be shown by him. Since the matter has already been restored to the file of the ITO, as he shall make disallowances, if any on the basis of the method is not in consonance with the method laid down by the Tribunal mentioned above. He may, however, given the assessee a specific opportunity to point out how his method is not in consonance with the method laid down by the Tribunal. Subject to these observations, the objection of the Department is dismissed. 7. The next objection of the Dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... many years for carrying on the business of the assessee efficiently and the assessee could never depend on the repair of these roads in desert or in mining areas on the Government. He submitted that for the asst. yrs. 1978-79 and 1979-80 a similar claim had been made and had been allowed by the ITO and hence, it was not justified to disallow in this year. 8. We have heard both the sides. We are of the opinion that this point has already been decided in the past that this expenditure is of revenue nature and has been allowed in the past. In these circumstances, there would be no justification in holding that for the year under consideration it was revenue expenditure of the assessee yet not connected with assessee's business. Moreover, eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imilarly claim of the assessee was allowed and there is nothing to show that decision of the learned CIT(A) has been reversed. In fact, from our order in R.A. Nos. 132 133/Jp/1990 for asst. yrs. 1978-79 and 1979-80 dt. 6th Nov., 1990, referred to above, we find that the Department had not even sought any reference on this point. In these circumstances, we uphold the decision of the learned CIT(A) and the objection of the Department on this point is also rejected. 11. The last objection for the asst. yr. 1980-81 is that the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance at Ratlam factory and consequently in deleting the addition of Rs. 75,849 made on this account. 12. We have heard both the si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
