9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e - it is an admitted position that no allowance or deduction had been made in the assessment of the assessee in any earlier year –thus, there is no question of invoking section 41(1) of the act - CIT(A) were correct in deleting the addition made by the AO – The Assessee is entitled to make a fresh claim before the CIT(A), when no investigation into the facts is required - the FAA admitted the ground and disposed of the same on merits - The Department has not filed an appeal challenging this action of the CIT (A) - decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA No. 225/Del/2011 - - - Dated:- 28-3-2014 - Shri U. B. S. Bedi, JM And Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, A.M.,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri R. K. Kapur, C.A. For the Respondent : Ms. Meena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nses. (1.1) That the disallowance of Rs.13,82,267/- is bad in law, inasmuch as the liability to pay expenses crystallized during the year under consideration. (2.0) That the CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in holding that the amount of Rs.1.26 crores on account of waiver of principal amount of loan by the financial institutions on restructuring the debt is a taxable income. (2.1) That the CIT(A) ought to have held that the waiver of principal amount of Rs.1.26 was on capital account and the reliance of the CIT(A) on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Sundaram Iyengar (TV) and Sons Ltd., 222 ITR 344 is not legal and proper. (2.2) That the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is bad in law. (2.3) That the CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uj.), in the case of CIT vs Gujarat State Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. (iv) ITA no.1308/PN/2010 for Assessment Year 2002-03, Pune Bench, in the case of The Mula Pravara Electric Co-Op.Society Ltd., vs. Dy.CIT 6. The Ld.D.R. Ms.Meenakshi Vohra, on the other hand submitted that, in the case of prior period expenses, the assessee has not produced any bills or evidence and hence reference to case laws is unnecessary and on facts the order of the revenue authorities have to be upheld, as the assessee has not discharged the burden of proof. On the issue of treating loan waiver of the principle amount of loan, as income, she argued that the assessee has not made claim before the Assessing Officer by filing a revised return of income and he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 41(1) is that an allowance or deduction ought to have been made in the assessment for any year in respect of any loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the assessee. In the present case it is an admitted position that no allowance or deduction had been made in the assessment of the assessee in any earlier year. Consequently, there is no question of invoking section 41(1) of the said act and the Tribunal as well as CIT(A) were correct in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. There is no merit in this appeal as no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 11. Similar is the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. Respectfully follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
