9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue, if any, subject to this that such deduction is not exceeding the WDV. In the present case, the scrap value sought to be reduced by the Assessing Officer is not on account of assets being sold or discarded or demolished or disturbed. In the present case, the asset is put to repair and the material used for repair of plant & machinery cannot be said to be the scrap value on account of sale or discarding or demolishing or disturbing of the asset in question. Hence, in our considered opinion, there is no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) on this issue and therefore, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue - Decided against revenue. Addition on account of liabilities of more than 3 years - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- CIT(A) has deleted this addition by following the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. [1999 (2) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court] . This is not the case of the Revenue that the liability is not appearing in the balance sheet. The only objection of the Assessing Officer is that the liability is more than three years old. Hence, under these facts, the disputed issue is covered in favour of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer that the assessee company is not in actual construction business except for the manufacture of one item i.e. cement and therefore, it is not perceptible as to how this item will benefit the business of the assessee. The issue in dispute is regarding expenses incurred by the assessee company in respect of architect award of the year. In our considered opinion, even if the assessee is in the business of manufacturing of only one time of construction material i.e. cement, such an expense on account of architect award, can be very much for business purposes because it will help the assessee company to promote its cement business. This is also noted by learned CIT(A) that the similar claim was allowed in earlier assessment year i.e. 94-95 and also in later year i.e. assessment year 2004-05. Hence, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No.563/LKW/2010, ITA No.506/LKW/2010, ITA No.632/LKW/2010, ITA No.633/LKW/2010, ITA No.714/LKW/2010 - - - Dated:- 21-8-2015 - SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, JJ. For The Revenue : Dr. Anand Kumar Agarwal, C.I.T., D.R. For The Assessee : Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 27.04.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 8. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by in favour of the assessee by Tribunal order for assessment year 1990 91. On the same line, in the present year also, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, ground No. 2 is rejected. 9. Ground No. 3 of the appeal is as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in allowing relief of ₹ 34,68,963/- being the disallowance on account of proportionate interest on interest free loans to M/s J. K. Satoh Agricultural Machines limited while the Assessing Officer has established that the advances had been made to the subsidiary company out of bank overdraft. 10. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was raised in the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y. 1991 92 as per Ground No. 6 and this appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal orders in that year. 11. We find that in A.Y. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration following a latest decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd. (supra). We find that this judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd. (supra), is dated 05/10/2005. All the earlier Tribunal orders cited by both the sides up to assessment year 85-86 are of earlier date and the latest order is dated 21/10/94 in I.T.A. No.5850/Del/91 for assessment year 85-86. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the latest Tribunal decision in I.T.A. No.2633/Del/94 dated 30/06/09 should be followed because in this Tribunal order, the Tribunal has considered a latest judgment of Hon ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd. (supra). Hence, respectfully following this Tribunal decision for assessment year 88-89, we restore back this issue to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in accordance with law after considering the latest decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd. (supra) and after finding out as to whether Kamla Retreat is guest house or not as per this judgment of Hon ble Apex Court and if it is fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owance to the extent of 30%. 18. Ground No. 4 (c) of the Revenue is as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 468,863/- even though the assessee failed to furnish supporting vouchers/bills in spite of specific opportunity was given. 19. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was raised in the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y. 1987 88 as per Ground No. 12 and this appeal was heard on 23.03.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 20. We find that in A.Y. 1987 88, this issue was decided by the tribunal in favour of the revenue and against the assessee as per Para No. 43.2 of the tribunal order in A.Y. 1987 88. Accordingly, in the present year also, this issue is decided on similar line and the Ground No. 4 (c) of the revenue is allowed. 21. Ground No. 4 (d) of the Revenue s appeal is as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in allowing relief of ₹ 1337,181/- even though the assessee failed to prove clear nexus of the expenditure with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 92. Accordingly, in the present year also, this issue is decided on similar line and the Ground No. 5(a) of the revenue is rejected. 30. Ground No. 5 (b) of the Revenue s appeal is as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 7,00,000/- on account of other maintenance expenses of guest house without appreciating the facts that the assessee did not maintain the books in respect of guest houses except for Kota Guest House. 31. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was raised in the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y. 1991 92 as per Ground No. 28 (c) and this appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 32. We find that in A.Y. 1991 92, this issue was decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee as per Para No. 114 of the tribunal order in A.Y. 1991 92. Accordingly, in the present year also, this issue is decided on similar line and the Ground No. 5(b) of the revenue is rejected. 33. Ground No. 6 of the Revenue is as under: On the facts and in the circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 41. We find that in A.Y. 1991 92, this issue was decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue as per Para 83 of the tribunal order for that year. No difference in facts could be pointed out by any side and therefore, in the present year also, this issue is decided on similar line. Accordingly, Ground No. 8 is rejected. 42. Ground No. 9 of the Revenue s appeal is as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in holding that the Guarantee charges of ₹ 4,32,444/- as revenue expenditure. 43. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was raised in the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y. 1991 92 as per Ground No. 17 and this these appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 44. We find that in A.Y. 1991 92, this issue was decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue as per Para 65 of the tribunal order for that year. No difference in facts could be pointed out by any sid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was agreed by both sides that this issue was also raised in the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y. 1991 92 as per Ground No. 18 (b) and this these appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 53. We find that in A.Y. 1991 92, this issue was decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue as per Para 71 of the tribunal order for that year. No difference in facts could be pointed out by any side and therefore, in the present year also, this issue is decided on similar line. Accordingly, this ground No. 11 (b) is rejected. 54. Ground No. 12 of the Revenue s appeal is as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in holding that the professional charges of ₹ 45,968/- as Revenue Expenditure. 55. It was agreed by both sides that this issue was also raised in the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y. 1991 92 as per Ground No. 16 and this these appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 56. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck of spares for Machinery Repairs. 64. It was agreed by both sides that this issue was also raised in the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y. 1991 92 as per Ground No. 22 and this these appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 65. We find that in A.Y. 1991 92, this issue was decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue as per Para 83 of the tribunal order for that year. No difference in facts could be pointed out by any side and therefore, in the present year also, this issue is decided on similar line. Accordingly, this ground No. 15 is rejected. 66. Ground No. 16 (a) is as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in allowing 100% depreciation on Machinery for energy conservation while such machinery was not directly covered by this type of plant Machinery as mentioned in I T. Rules be calculated treating it as plant Machinery instead of part of roads. 67. It was agreed by both sides that this issue was also raised in the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y. 1991 92 as per Groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the assessee under similar facts and Learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the present year. Since, the order of CIT (A) is in line with earlier Tribunal decision, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, this ground No. 17 is rejected. 75. Ground No. 18 is as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 93,10,617/- on account of proportionate premium on redemption of debentures without appreciating the fact that no premium was payable before expiry of 7 years. 76. It was agreed by both sides that this issue was also raised in the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y. 1991 92 as per Ground No. 5 and this appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 77. We find that in A.Y. 1991 92, this issue was decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue as per Para 29 of the tribunal order for that year. No difference in facts could be pointe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance up to 70% i.e. ₹ 23,31,463/- on account of customary presentation expenses even though the expenditure hit by section 37 (2A) of the Act. 85. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was raised in the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y. 1991 92 as per Ground No. 4 (b) and this appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 86. We find that in A.Y. 1991 92, this issue was decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue as per Para No. 17 of the tribunal order in A.Y. 1991 92. Accordingly, in the present year also, this issue is decided on similar line and the Ground No. 20 (b) of the revenue is rejected. 87 Ground No. 20(c) reads as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 3,77,816/- even though these expense were not connected with business. 88. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was raised in the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y. 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowing the prospecting expenditure u/s 35E. 97. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order. Learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision for assessment year 1993-94 in I.T.A. No.687/Luc/02, available on pages 194 of the paper book. He also submitted that in that year, the tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the A.O. in view of finding in assessee s appeal for the same year in ITA No. 589/Luc/2002 available at pages 142 144 of the paper book. 98. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below and the Tribunal decision cited by Learned A.R. of the assessee. In assessment year 1993-94, the Tribunal has restored the matter back to the file of the A.O. in view of finding in assessee s appeal for the same year in ITA No. 589/Luc/2002 available at pages 142 144 of the paper book. None of both sides could point out any difference in facts and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the present year. Accordingly, we set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder, a clear finding is given by CIT (A) that the liability has arisen in this year and therefore, allowable. Learned DR of the revenue could not controvert this finding and hence, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT (A) on this issue. Accordingly, Ground No. 23 of the revenue is rejected. 105. Ground No. 24 is as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 23,47,459/-under the head repairs to building expenses even though these expenses were of capital in nature. 106. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was raised in the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y. 1991 92 as per Ground No. 11 and this appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 107. We find that in A.Y. 1991 92, this issue was decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue as per Para No. 47 of the tribunal order in A.Y. 1991 92. Accordingly, in the present year also, this issue is decided on similar line and the Ground No. 24 of the revenue is rejected. 108. Ground No. 25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is allowed by CIT (A) to the extent of R. 459,307/- i.e. 90%. In A.Y. 1987 88, on this aspect, the order of CIT (A) was reversed and that of the A.O. was restored. Accordingly, in the present year also, on this aspect, we reverse the order of CIT (A) and restore that of the A.O. In this manner, Ground No. 8 is partly allowed in the terms indicated above. 114. Accordingly in the present year also, this issue is decided on similar line. Out of expenses on Presentation of Articles ₹ 406,745/-, we uphold the disallowance of 30% of ₹ 406,745/-. 115. In addition to this, disallowance in respect of those expenses, for which, no detail is available as per A.O., disallowance was of ₹ 1039,122/- and in A.Y. 1991 92, on this aspect, the order of CIT (A) was reversed and that of the A.O. was restored. Accordingly, in the present year also, on this aspect, we reverse the order of CIT (A) and restore that of the A.O. On remaining issues, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT (A). This ground is partly allowed. 116. Ground No. 27 is as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in deleting disallo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is decided on similar line and the Ground No. 1 of the assessee is rejected. 125. Ground No. 2 (a) is as under: Employees Welfare Expenses (a) Not allowing a sum of ₹ 5,56,594/- (being 50% of ₹ 11,13,187/-) holding it to be entertainment expenses. 126. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was raised in the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 1991-92 as per Ground No. 13(a) in that year and the appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 127. We find that in A.Y. 1991-92 in assessee s own appeal, this issue was decided by the tribunal against the assessee as per Para 174 of the tribunal order in A.Y. 1991-92. Therefore, in line with the Tribunal order in assessee s own appeal for assessment year 1991-92, this issue in the present year is decided against the assessee. This ground is rejected. 128. Ground No. 2 (b) is as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both on fact and in law in :- Employees Welfare Expenses Confirming disallowance of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that in A.Y. 1991-92 in assessee s own appeal, this issue was decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee as per Para 180 of the tribunal order in A.Y. 1991-92. Therefore, in line with the Tribunal order in assessee s own appeal for assessment year 1991-92, this issue in the present year is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is allowed. 137. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. Learned A.R. of the assessee submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision for assessment year 1993-94 in I.T.A. No.687/Luc/2002, available on pages 181 - 182 of the paper book. 138. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below and the Tribunal decision cited by Learned A.R. of the assessee. In earlier assessment year 1993-94, the Tribunal has allowed relief to the assessee under similar facts and Learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the present year. Hence, we delete this disallowance. Accordingly, this ground No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in law in :- Guest House Expenses (a) In confirming disallowance of a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/-towards other maintenance expenses of guest house on ad hoc basis. 146. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was raised in the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 1991-92 as per Ground No. 17(c) in that year and the appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 147. We find that in A.Y. 1991-92 in assessee s own appeal, this issue was decided by the tribunal against the assessee as per Para 198 of the tribunal order in A.Y. 1991-92. Therefore, in line with the Tribunal order in assessee s own appeal for assessment year 1991-92, this issue in the present year is decided against the assessee. This ground is rejected. 148. Ground No. 5 is as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both on fact and in law in :- Rates Taxes Not allowing claim of depreciation of ₹ 17,222/-on amount offered as capital in Assessment year 1989 90 out of Rates Taxes. 149. Lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant. 155. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was raised in the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 1991-92 as per Ground No. 12 in that year and the appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 156. We find that in A.Y. 1991-92 in assessee s own appeal, this issue was decided by the tribunal against the assessee as per Para 171 of the tribunal order in A.Y. 1991-92. Therefore, in line with the Tribunal order in assessee s own appeal for assessment year 1991-92, this issue in the present year is decided against the assessee. This ground is rejected. 157. Ground No. 8 is as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both on fact and in law in :- Foreign Travelling Expenses: Not allowing deduction of ₹ 373,058/- being expenses on foreign travelling on the wives of the Directors of the company by not appreciating the facts of the case and judicial pronouncement relied upon by the appellant. 158. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the orders of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per Ground No. 2(a) in that year and the appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 165. We find that in A.Y. 1991-92 in assessee s own appeal, this issue was decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee as per Para 132 of the tribunal order in A.Y. 1991-92. Therefore, in line with the Tribunal order in assessee s own appeal for assessment year 1991-92, this issue in the present year is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is allowed. 166. Ground No. 10 (b) is as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both on fact and in law in :- Sales Promotion Expenses Upholding disallowance of ₹ 999,198/- (30% of total expenditure ₹ 33,30,661/-) being expenses on customary presentation of articles. 167. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was raised in the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 1991-92 as per Ground No. 2 (b) in that year and the appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, in line with the Tribunal order in assessee s own appeal for assessment year 1991-92, this issue in the present year is decided against the assessee. This ground is rejected. 175. Ground No. 12 (b) is as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both on fact and in law in :- 5. Charges General Confirming disallowance of ₹ 183,375/- (being 15% of ₹ 1222,497/-) by wrongly holding that no details/incomplete details were filed. 176. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was raised in the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 1991-92 as per Ground No. 5 (c) in that year and the appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 177. We find that in A.Y. 1991-92 in assessee s own appeal, this issue was decided by the tribunal against the assessee as per Para 150 of the tribunal order in A.Y. 1991-92. Therefore, in line with the Tribunal order in assessee s own appeal for assessment year 1991-92, this issue in the present year is decided against the assessee. This gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n deleting the addition of ₹ 21,42,857/- on account of Proportionate premium on redemption of debenture without appreciating the fact that no premium was payable before expiry of 7 years. 187. It was agreed by both sides that this issue is identical to the issue raised by Revenue in its appeal for assessment year 1991-92 as per ground No. 5 in I.T.A. No.537/Lkw/10, which was heard on 1 st May 2015. Both the sides agreed that this issue may be decided on similar line as per the decision of the Tribunal in assessment year 91-92. 188. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue in assessment year 91-92 as per ground No. 5 and in that year, the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 29 of that Tribunal decision. On the same line, in the present year also, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and accordingly ground No. 1 of the Revenue is rejected. 189. Ground No. 2 is as under: 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Kanpur has erred in holding that the other consultan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts that the assessee did not maintain the books in respect of guest houses except for Kota Guest House, as well as the assessee had not produce any details in respect of assets at Guest Houses. 197. It was agreed by both sides that this issue is identical to the issue raised by Revenue in its appeal for assessment year 1991-92 as per ground No. 28 in I.T.A. No.537/Lkw/10, which was heard on 1 st May 2015. Both the sides agreed that this issue may be decided on similar line as per the decision of the Tribunal in assessment year 91-92. 198. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue in assessment year 91-92 as per ground No. 28 and in that year, the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 106 - 114 of that Tribunal decision. On the same line, in the present year also, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and accordingly ground No. 4 of the Revenue is rejected. 199. Ground No. 5 is as under: 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Kanpur has erred in deleting the addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 1,74,481/- on account of Gardening charges ignoring the fact that the expenses were not properly verifiable, even though the assessee failed to furnish the proper vouchers for verification in spite of specific opportunity was given. 206. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the tribunal order in assessee s own case for assessment year 93-94 in I.T.A. No.687/Lkw/2002, copy available in the paper book. 207. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the present issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision in assessee s own case for assessment year 93-94 in I.T.A. No.687/Lkw/2002. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 208. Ground No. 8 is as under: 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of expenses on Kamla Retreat ignoring that these expenses are hit by section 37(4) and 37(5) of the Act. 215. It was agreed by both sides that this issue is identical to the issue raised by Revenue in its appeal for assessment year 1990-91 as per ground No. 10 (a) in I.T.A. No.486/Lkw/10, which was heard on 27 th April 2015. Both the sides agreed that this issue may be decided on similar line as per the decision of the Tribunal in assessment year 90-91. 216. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue in assessment year 90-91 as per ground No. 10 (a) and in that year, the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 37 - 39 of that Tribunal decision. On the same line, in the present year also, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and accordingly ground No. 10 of the Revenue is rejected. 217. Ground No. 11 is as under: 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Kanpur has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 3,40,103/- on account of guest house maintained in Kamla Castle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 13 of the Revenue is rejected. 223. Ground No. 14 is as under: 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Kanpur has erred in deleting disallowance of ₹ 43,188/- on account of payment made to clubs ignoring the fact that these expenses were not incurred for non-business purposes. 224. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 26 in assessment year 91-92 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 100 - 102 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. On the same line, in the present year also, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and accordingly ground No. 13 of the Revenue is rejected. 225. Ground No. 15 is as under: 15. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in allowing the relief of Rs. ₹ 55,00,000/- under the head General Charges for which no details were filed as well as the expenses were also not properly vouched and unverifiable. 226. We have considered the rival submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the nature of entertainment and not connected to the business. 230. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue in assessment year 93-94 and in that year, the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 243 - 244 in assessment year 93-94. On the same line, in the present year also, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and accordingly ground No. 17 of the Revenue is rejected. 231. Ground No. 18 is as under: 18. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Kanpur has erred in deleting the disallowance up to 80% i.e. ₹ 64,00,000/- on account of sales promotion expenses even though the expenditure hit by section 37(2A) of the Act being entertainment and presentation/gift expenses. 232. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by assessee as per ground No. 4(a) to 4 (e) in assessment year 91-92 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 12 - 26 in assessment year 91-92. On the same l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, in the present year also, order of CIT(A) is set aside and matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer as per the direction of the Tribunal in assessment year 92-93 as per Para 101 above. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 240. Ground No. 22 is as under: 22. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Kanpur has erred in allowing relief of ₹ 8,50,000/- on account of office maintenance expenses ignoring the fact that these expenses were entertainment in nature and spent on food etc. as well as capital expenditure in nature. 241. D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the tribunal order in assessee s own case for assessment year 93-94, copy available in the paper book. 242. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for assessment year 93-94. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue was decided by learned CIT(A) as per Para 32 available on pages 34 and 35 of the order of CIT(A). We find that it is noted by CIT(A) that the disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer with the finding that the assessee company is not in actual construction business except for the manufacture of one item i.e. cement and therefore, it is not perceptible as to how this item will benefit the business of the assessee. The issue in dispute is regarding expenses incurred by the assessee company in respect of architect award of the year. In our considered opinion, even if the assessee is in the business of manufacturing of only one time of construction materials i.e. cement, such an expense on account of architect award, can be very much for business purposes because it will help the assessee company to promote its cement business. This is also noted by learned CIT(A) that the similar claim was allowed in earlier assessment year i.e. 94-95 and also in later year i.e. assessment year 2004-05. Hence, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. This ground is rejected. 250. Ground No. 26 is as under: 26. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Kumar Agarwal 249 ITR 113. Considering these facts, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue. This ground is rejected. 258. Ground No. 29 is as under: 29. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Kanpur has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,00,417/- on account of liabilities of more than 3 years, even though the debt were effected with cessation of liabilities within the meaning of section 41(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961. 259. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 260. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that learned CIT(A) has deleted this addition by following the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. 236 ITR 518. This is not the case of the Revenue that the liability is not appearing in the balance sheet. The only objection of the Assessing Officer is that the liability is more than three years old. Hence, under these facts, the disputed issue is co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per clause (c) of sub section (6) of section 43, deduction has to be made from opening WDV on account of sums payable in respect of any asset falling within that block which is sold or discarded or demolished or disturbed, during that previous year together with the amount of scrap value, if any, subject to this that such deduction is not exceeding the WDV. In the present case, the scrap value sought to be reduced by the Assessing Officer is not on account of assets being sold or discarded or demolished or disturbed. In the present case, the asset is put to repair and the material used for repair of plant machinery cannot be said to be the scrap value on account of sale or discarding or demolishing or disturbing of the asset in question. Hence, in our considered opinion, there is no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) on this issue and therefore, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. Ground No. 31(a) is rejected. 266. Ground No. 31(b) is as under: 31(b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Kanpur has erred in allowing 100% depreciation on Machinery for energy saving while such machinery was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reciation on amount of Foreign exchange rate fluctuation even though the claim was hit by provisions of section 43A. 273. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision in assessee s own case for assessment year 91-92 by way of Ground No. 30 (a) (b) and the relevant Para of that Tribunal order is Para No. 118 to 120. Hence, we find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year also. Accordingly, this ground is rejected. 274. Ground No. 32 is as under: 32. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Kanpur has erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 1,22,53,550/- on account of Brokerage Commission even though the expenses were not relating to the sale made during the year under consideration. 275. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 21 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the head repairs to plant machinery expenses even though these expenses were of capital in nature as well as expenses related to earlier years, no details/incomplete details furnished, not related to business and not verifiable with vouchers. 283. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 284. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 10 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 42 to 44 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 285. Ground No. 36 is as under: 36. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Kanpur has erred in deleting the disallow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duct development expenses ignoring that these expenses were in the nature of entertainment as well as spent on gifts and presentation and hit by section 37(2A) of the Act. 292. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 293. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 18(a) (b) in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 66 to 68 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 294. Ground No. 39 is as under: 39. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Kanpur has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 28,36,757/- on account of articles/gift intended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 302. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that a clear finding has been given by learned CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer has failed to point out even a single instance of unvouched expenses or absence of details. This finding of CIT(A) could not be controverted by Learned D.R. of the Revenue and therefore, we feel that no interference is called for in the order of learned CIT(A). This ground is rejected. 303. Ground No. 42 is as under: 42. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Kanpur has erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 1,95,51,000/- on account of under valuation of stock in trade ignoring that the assessee changed valuation method of the closing stock during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration which resulted under valuation of stock in trade to the tune of ₹ 1,95,51,000/-. 304. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 305. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that it is observed by learned CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 313. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 19 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 72 to 74 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 314. Ground No. 3 is as under: 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,35,089/- on account expenses on foreign technician ignoring the fact that the expenses were in the nature of entertainment of foreign technician. 315. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 75 to 77 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 323. Ground No. 6 is as under: 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Guarantee charges of ₹ 8,57,761/- as Revenue expenditure. Even though the assessee could not establish that all the expenses were revenue in nature and wholly and exclusively related to the business. 324. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 325. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 17 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 332. Ground No. 9 is as under: 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 4,26,466/- on account of guest house maintained in Kamla Castle at Mussorie even though no details of the expenditure were produce before him and as such, the relief given is without basis. 333. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 334. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 9 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 39 to 41 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in allowing relief of ₹ 8,34,795/-being the disallowance on account of proportionate interest on the interest free loans to M/s J. K. Satoh Agricultural Machines Ltd., while the Assessing Officer has established that the advances had been made to the subsidiary company out of bank overdraft. 342. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 343. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 2 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 5 to 7 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 344. Ground No. 13 is as under: 13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s debited under this head were related towards entertainment, presentation of articles. Guest house expense and expenses of capital nature as well as the assessee failed to furnish head wise bifurcation of expenses in spite of specific opportunity given. 351. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 352. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 24(a) to 24(c) in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 87 to 95 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 353. Ground No. 16 is as under: 16. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 37(2A) of the Act. 360. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that the issue in dispute is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment year 93-94 as per Para 251 and 252 of the Tribunal order. 361. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the issue in dispute is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision in assessee s own case for assessment year 93-94. Learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the present year. This ground is rejected. 362. Ground No. 19 is as under: 19. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) is not correct in allowing the prospecting expenditure u/s 35E. 363. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 364. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 2 in assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake a contrary view in the present year. This ground is rejected. 371. Ground No. 22 is as under: 22. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing relief of ₹ 61,52,204/- on account of expenses on Architect award of the year ignoring the fact that the assessee company is not in actual construction business, as well as the assessee failed to establish clear nexus of expenditure with the business. 372. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 373. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this is the only objection of the Assessing Officer that the assessee company is not in actual construction business except for the manufacture of one item i.e. cement and therefore, it is not perceptible as to how this item will benefit the business of the assessee. The issue in dispute is regarding expenses incurred by the assessee company in respect of architect award of the year. In our considered opinion, even if the assessee is in the business of manufacturing of only one time of construction material i.e. cement, such an ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere effected with cessation of liabilities within the meaning of section 41(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961. 381. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 382. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that learned CIT(A) has deleted this addition by following the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. 236 ITR 518. This is not the case of the Revenue that the liability is not appearing in the balance sheet. The only objection of the Assessing Officer is that the liability is more than three years old. Hence, under these facts, the disputed issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court followed by learned CIT(A). We, therefore, decline to interfere in the order of learned CIT(A). This ground is rejected. 383. Ground No. 26 is as under: 26. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing the relief of ₹ 1,60,673/-on account of Taxi hire charges expenses, even though the assessee could not establish that these expenses were incurred for the busin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be reduced by the Assessing Officer is not on account of assets being sold or discarded or demolished or disturbed. In the present case, the asset is put to repair and the material used for repair of plant machinery cannot be said to be the scrap value on account of sale or discarding or demolishing or disturbing of the asset in question. Hence, in our considered opinion, there is no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) therefore, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. Ground No. 27(a) is rejected. 388. Ground No. 27(b) is as under: 27(b). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing 100% depreciation on Machinery for energy saving while such machinery was not directly covered by this type of Plant Machinery as mentioned in I. T. Rules be calculated treating it as Plant Machinery instead of part of roads. 389. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 390. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 30(c) in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - on account of Brokerage Commission even though the expenses were not relating to the sale made during the year under consideration. 397. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 398. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 21 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 78 to 80 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 399. Ground No. 29 is as under: 29. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 31,410/- on account of finance charges even though the expenses were not relating to the sale made during the year under cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 10 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 42 to 44 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 408. Ground No. 32 is as under: 32. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 1,05,13,020/- under the head repairs to building expenses even though these expenses were of capital in nature as well as1 expenses related to earlier years, no details7in-complete details furnished, not related to business and not verifiable with vouchers. 409. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 410. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 11 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 417. Ground No. 35 is as under: 35. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 25,64,629/- on account of articles/gift intended for presentation even though the expenditure hit by section 37(2A) of the Act. 418. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 419. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 18(b) in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 69 to 71 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 99-2000. 428. Ground No. 1 is as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Guarantee charges of ₹ 2,79,445/- as Revenue expenditure. 429. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 430. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 17 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 63 to 65 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 431. Ground No. 2 is as under: 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the Gardening charges of ₹ 1,55,805/- even though these expenses were not pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 39 to 41 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 440. Ground No. 5 is as under: 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief of ₹ 6,65,392/- being the disallowance on account of proportionate interest on the interest free loans to M/s J. K. Satoh Agricultural Machines Ltd., while the Assessing Officer has established that the advances had been made to the subsidiary company out of bank overdraft. 441. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 442. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 2 in assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 449. Ground No. 8 is as under: 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 33,38,673/- under the head General Charges for which no details were filed. 450. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 451. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 8 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal partly in favour of the assessee as per Para 36 to 38 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 458. Ground No. 11 is as under: 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 35,000/- on account of traveling expenses ignoring the fact that these expenses were not connected with business. 459. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that the issue in dispute is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment year 93-94 as per Para 251 and 252 of the Tribunal order. 460. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the issue in dispute is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision in assessee s own case for assessment year 93-94. Learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the present year. This ground is rejected. 461. Ground No. 12 is as under: 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the issue in dispute is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision in assessee s own case for assessment year 93-94. Learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the present year. This ground is rejected. 470. Ground No. 15 is as under: 15. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief of ₹ 16,65,633/- on account of expenses on Architect award of the year ignoring the fact that the assessee company is not in actual construction business, as well as the assessee failed to establish clear nexus of expenditure with the business. 471. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 472. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this is the only objection of the Assessing Officer that the assessee company is not in actual construction business except for the manufacture of one item i.e. cement and therefore, it is not perceptible as to how this item will be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. 236 ITR 518. This is not the case of the Revenue that the liability is not appearing in the balance sheet. The only objection of the Assessing Officer is that the liability is more than three years old. Hence, under these facts, the disputed issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court followed by learned CIT(A). We, therefore, decline to interfere in the order of learned CIT(A). This ground is rejected. 479. Ground No. 18 is as under: 18. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld, CIT(A) has erred in allowing the relief of ₹ 1,29,952/- on account of Taxi hire charges expenses, even though the assessee could not establish that these expenses were incurred for the Business purposes in spite of specific opportunity given. 480. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that the issue in dispute is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment year 95-96 as per Para 405 of the Tribunal order. 481. We have considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding or demolishing or disturbing of the asset in question. Hence, in our considered opinion, there is no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) therefore, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. Ground No. 19(a) is rejected. 485. Ground No. 19(b) is as under: 19(b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing 100% depreciation on Machinery for energy saving while such machinery was not directly covered by this type of Plant Machinery as mentioned in I. T. Rules be calculated treating it as Plant Machinery instead of part of roads. 486. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 487. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 30(c) in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 121 to 123 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d through stores in spite of specific opportunity given. 495. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 496. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 10 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 42 to 44 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 497. Ground No. 21 is as under: 21. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 86,75,526/- on account of repairs to building expenses, even though the assessee could not prove that all items charged under this head were routed through stores in spite of specific opportunity given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al submissions. We find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of Sayaji Iron and Engg. Co. vs. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 749 (Guj) where it is held that even if there is personal use of telephone and vehicles etc. by the Directors / employees of the company, the same can be included in the perquisites value of the concerned Director/ employee but the disallowance cannot be made in the hands of the assessee company. We decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A). This ground is rejected. 506. Ground No. 24 is as under: 24. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 61,619/- on account of repairs to other assets expenses, ignoring the fact that these expenses were not properly vouched. 507. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that the issue in dispute is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment year 93-94 as per Para 279 to 280 of the Tribunal order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 515. Ground No. 27 is as under: 27. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief of ₹ 4,32,224/- on account of guest house maintained in Kamla Castle at Mussorie even though no details of the expenditure were produce before him and as such, the relief given is without basis. 516. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 517. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 6 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 30 to 32 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 72 to 74 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 526. Ground No. 31 is as under: 31. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,70,300/- on account other professional charges even though the assessee failed to prove the nexus of expenditure with business in spite of specific opportunity was given. 527. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 528. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 20 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
