9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Court in the case of CIT Vs. Himalaya Machinery (P) Ltd reported in 2012 (12) TMI 607 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and CIT Vs. Polestar Industries reported in (2013 (11) TMI 910 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT). The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue is not in a position to show any contrary decision to the aforesaid decisions - Decided against revenue. Disallowance of expenditure - ITAT allowed the claim - Held that:- The learned CIT(A) has given independent and elaborate reasons while restricting the disallowance of expenditure of ₹ 10,90,223/- and granted the relief to the assessee to the extent of ₹ 6,09,870/- on each item. We see no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned CIT(A) confirmed by the lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23,97,146/- and short term capital gain of ₹ 5,44,587/-? (C) Whether the ITAT is justified in law as well as on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to allow expenses amount to ₹ 6,09,870/- debited in P L account ignoring the fact that no business had been carried out by the assessee during the year? [2.0] Now so far as the proposed substantial question of law no.(A) is concerned, from the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal it appears that the learned Tribunal has relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Aspi Ginwala Ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (52 SOT 16) Ahm. However, it is reported that the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the learned Tribunal in the case of Asp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue is not in a position to show any contrary decision to the aforesaid decisions. He is also not in a position to dispute that the aforesaid question no.(B) is squarely covered against the revenue in view of the aforesaid two decisions of this Court. Under the circumstances and considering the aforesaid two binding decisions of the Division Bench of this Court, we dismiss the present Tax Appeal qua proposed question no.(B). [4.0] Now so far as question no.(C) i.e, whether the ITAT is justified in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to allow expense amount to ₹ 6,09,870/- debited in P L Account is concerned, it is true that the learned Tribunal has not elaborately deal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
