2012 (9) TMI 481

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dv. For Respondent : Mr. Puneet Jain, Adv. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Adv. (N/P) JUDGEMENT Heard learned counsel on both sides. In the present case concerning Assessment Year 1992-1993, the assessee claimed deduction in respect of an amount of Rs.65,44,703/- as revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['Act', for short]. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assess .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onsideration of the entire relevant facts and the principles of law emerging from the above referred decisions, we are of the considered opinion that deduction in respect of expenditure amounting to Rs.65,44,703/- should be allowed as revenue expenditure in the year under consideration viz. in AY 1992-93 on the condition that the AO should simultaneously withdraw deduction of 1/6th amount of the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s Assessment Year 1992-1993. We have doubts about the validity of the decision of ITAT. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, at this point of time, it would not be fair to ask the assessee, who has already got deduction under Section 37 of the Act to re-work and claim the benefit under Section 35AB of the Act on the basis of amortization of capital expenditure. For the afore-stat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X