9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the ld. CIT(A), Panaji-1 in the case of M/s. Zephyr Biomedicals in ITA No. 348/PNJ/2013-14 dt. 20.3.2015 for the A.Y 2011-12. Shri Pramod Y. Vaidya, Advocate alongwith Shri Manjunath Hegde, CA & Shri Lorence J. Malekar, CA represented on behalf of the Assessees and Shri Siddappaji R.N, ld. DR represented on behalf of the Revenue. 2. As the issues in both the appeals are identical, same are disposed off by this common order. 3. In the Revenue's appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds : "1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,74,34,836/- in respect of the payment made by the assessee towards freight to Forwarding and Cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of M/s. Orchid Biomedical Systems and in ITA Nos. 121 & 309/PNJ/2014 in the case of M/s. Zephyr Biomedicals vide order dt. 16.1.2015. It was the submission that the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal had reversed the order of the ld. CIT(A) and had upheld the disallowance made by the AO. 5. In reply, the ld. AR submitted that in the decision referred to by the ld. DR, the Assessees had not been able to prove that the payments made to the Clearing and Forwarding agents were reimbursement. He drew our attention to pages 69 to 80 of the paper book to submit that the payments made by the Assessees to the various Forwarding and Clearing agents were in fact reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the Forwarding and Clearing agents. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R on behalf of the Assessees admit that the facts remain the same. In these circumstances, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the Assessees' own case wherein it has been held as follows : "15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the fact that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and Hon'ble Calcutta High Court had decided the issue on merit, we do not agree with the alternate submission of the Assessee and are of the view that the decision of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1871/Mum/2013 in the case of M/s. Arcadia Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT will not assist the Assessee as this decision has simply took the view that the issue is covered by the decision of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
