9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I AND MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPONENT : MRS SWATI SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. Both these appeals arise from the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, therefore, they are being head and decided by this common judgment. 2. By way of these appeals, the appellantrevenue has challenged the common order dated 24.03.2006, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short the Tribunal ) in ITA Nos. 1641 and 1642/Ahd/2001, whereby the appeals preferred by the assessees were allowed by the Tribunal. 3. The facts as well as the question of law of both these appeals are similar, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of ₹ 2,50,00,000/- paid to the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI)as revenue expenditure ? 7. Learned advocate for the appellantrevenue has submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in allowing the appeals of the assessees and in deleting the disallowance. It is the contention of learned advocate for the appellant-revenue that while deciding the appeals the Tribunal has wrongly relied on the decision of this Court in the case of DCIT v. Core Health Care Ltd. 251 ITR 61 and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Market Creator Ltd. Baroda v. ACIT in ITA No.5029/Ahd/1996. Therefore, he urged that this Court may allow these appeals and answer the question raised in these appeals in favour of the revenue and again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had granted time to learned counsel for the appellants to ascertain this statement of fact made by learned counsel for the assessee, but he was not able to gather necessary information nor was in a position to controvert the statement made by learned counsel for the assessee. 6. In light of the statement made at the Bar by learned counsel for the respondent, we find that there is no merit or substance in this appeal. If the Revenue had been treating the amount of ₹ 5,00,000deposited by the similarly situated assessees with SEBI as revenue expenditure, then there is no reason why a different treatment should be meted out to the present assessee. In light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no substance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
