9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6/PN/2010 - - - Dated:- 6-1-2012 - SHRI I C SUDHIR, SHRI G.S. PANNU, JJ. Appellant by : Shri S K Ambastha Respondent by : Shri P S Karpe ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, A.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-V, Pune dated 09.03.2010 which, in turn, has arisen from order dated 15.12.2008 passed by the Assessing Officer, under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act), pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07. 2. The following Grounds of appeal have been raised by the Revenue: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs 43,93,130/- made by AO as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecord, the aforesaid Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are decided as follows. 6. In so far as Ground No. 1 is concerned, the same relates to a disallowance of Rs 43,93,130/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act, which has been subsequently restricted to Rs 1,00,000/- by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Against the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Revenue is in appeal before us. In this case, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had earned dividend income of Rs 10,25,89,578/-, which was claimed as exempt under section 10(15) of the Act. The Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act, disallowed a sum of Rs 43,93,130/- as pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning the exempt dividend income. As a result thereof, Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 7. The next issue raised is that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified in holding that the payment of technical knowhow of Rs 40,20,546/- was revenue in nature. Here again, we find that identical issue was subject-matter of consideration by the Tribunal and in the assessee s own case of assessment year 2000-01 vide order in ITA No 292/PN/2006, the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was affirmed and such a decision has also since been followed by the Tribunal in the assessee s own case for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 in its consolidated order dated 30.6.2011 (supra). Following the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4/PN/2007. In this connection, we find that the adjustments permitted to the book profits in terms of Explanation (1) to section 115JB are only on account of provisions made for meeting liabilities other than ascertained liabilities. Quite clearly the provision made on account of leave encashment does not fall in the category of an unascertained liability and, therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) made no mistake in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, we affirm the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Thus, Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is also dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 6th Day of January, 2012. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
