9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of ₹ 5,24,341/- being provision for repairs claimed under the head repairs and maintenance of claimed under the head repairs and maintenance of factory building totaling to ₹ 16,82,836/-. It was his contention that on examination of vouchers it was noticed that they were billed in next accounting year, so the amounts were to be allowed in the next year and cannot be in the year under consideration. It was the submission of the assessee that they have untaken regular maintenance work throughout the year and the work for which the provision was made was completed before March 2003, but the bills were received subsequently. Therefore, a provision of similar amount was made at the year ending March 2003. 3. The learned C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... calculation of amounts incurred in excess of amounts specified in IT Rules and included in the hands of the employees as perquisites. While referring to the past history of the company, the AO disallowed the same. On appeal, the CIT(A) after considering the written submissions deleted the addition. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and also perused the orders of the lower authorities. The Cit(A) also gave a finding that expenditure is for business purposes. We find that in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2001- 02 the Tribunal vide its order dated 17.3.2008 in ITA No.335/M/2005 rejected the appeal filed by the revenue by confirming the order of the CIT(A). Following the above findings, since facts are same in this y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the excise duty as part of total turnover and following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd. 245 ITR 769(Bom.) the CIT(A) deleted the addition. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Machine Works Ltd. (290 ITR 67). Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A). The learned DR during the course of argument raised an issue that excise duty has to be excluded from export turnover as well which was not considered by the AO or the CIT(A). The learned counsel for the assessee, however, submitted that excise duty was not part of export turnover and therefore, the question of including the same does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
