9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer s action of restricting the relief under section 80-I to Rs. 73,65,523 as against a sum of Rs. 86,11,550 claimed by the appellant. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the fact while confirming the addition of Rs. 16,09,316 made on account of valuation of closing stock. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while rejecting the appellant s contention that the proportionate amount of premium on redemption of debentures should be allowed as a revenue expenditure for the year under consideration. 2. The facts relating to first ground of appeal are that the assessee was allowed deduction of Rs. 69,53,199 as against Rs. 86,11,550 claimed by the assessee under section 80-I of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26-6-1995, the Tribunal held that sub-sections (8) and (9) of section 80-I were wrongly applied by the Revenue authorities. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that facts and circumstances in the assessment year before us and in assessment year 1990-91, decided by the Tribunal are identical. It is admitted by the CIT(A) in para 21 of his order. The impugned order of the Assessing Officer also proceeds on the line assessment was made in the immediately preceding assessment year i.e. assessment year 1990-91. The learned counsel for the assessee further placed before us details of rate of transfer of grey wool tops, dyed wool tops to support his submissions that there was negligible difference in the price charged and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment year 1990-91 in the case of the assessee. With above observations, the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer and this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. The facts relating to next ground of appeal are that the assessee had valued its goods at cost or at realisable value whichever was lower. It was the claim of the assessee that sale price of several items available in the closing stock had fallen. Accordingly above items were valued at realisable price. The Assessing Officer rejected above contention and enhanced the value of the closing stock by applying the average of Rs. 46 per kg. This way an addition of Rs. 16,09,360 was made in the closing stock. 8. The assessee being aggrieved, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r on verification as was done prior to passing of order dated 19-9-1996 for assessment year 1992-93 should allow appropriate relief to the assessee. In the above background, this issue is also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for passing fresh order in the light of our above directions. 11. In the next ground of appeal, the assessee has challenged rejection of claim of proportionate deduction of premium payable on redemption of debentures. The Revenue authorities disallowed this claim as according to them liability to pay premium would arise only in the year the debentures were to be redeemed. Therefore, no deduction on proportionate basis having regard to period of redemption could be allowed. The assessee is aggrieved and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per the following decisions : ( i ) Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802 (SC) ( ii ) National Engg. Industries Ltd. v. CIT 236 [1999] 236 ITR 577 (Cal.) ( iii ) Universal Cables Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 371 (Cal.) ( iv ) M.P. Financial Corpn. v. CIT [1987] 165 ITR 765 (MP) ( v ) Rallies India Ltd., 24 ITD 495 (Cal) ( vi ) Sujlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. ACIT Vice Versa [(ITA No. 3717 (Cal.) 92]. 31. In the light of the above decisions, more particularly upon the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802 accept the claim of the assessee. Accordingly, the decision of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
