9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e. for the assessment years 1995-96 to 1998-99 the assessment have become final. Thus, 40% of the lump sum amount incurred in the first assessment year has been allowed as deduction at the rate of 10% in each of these years. That is the factual situation prevailing. Upsetting the apple cart in the middle and challenging the course of action by treating these expenditure under Section 35 D of the Act would clearly be impermissible. It may also noted that with interest, that for the assessment years 2002-03 again deduction at the rate of 10% of the said expenditure has been allowed. In these circumstances, apart from the fact that in the year 1995-96, the issue was gone into by the Assessing Officer by applying his mind, we are of the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e aforesaid period. The assessee, therefore, claimed deduction of the entire expenditure in the same year i.e. the assessment years 1995-96 but claimed only 10% thereof as deduction in that year. Assessment order was passed under Section 143 (3) of the Income-Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). After going into the nature of the aforesaid expenditure and the Assessing Officer allowed the amortization of the expenditure in aforesaid manner in which the assessee wanted this expenditure to be claimed over a period of ten years. We have been shown the copy of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1995- 96. The perusal thereof shows that this issue was specifically deliberated upon by the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment year 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02. The assessee also preferred appeals against the regular assessment passed in respect of assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The CIT (A) set aside the orders passed under Section 147 of the Act as well as the assessment orders made in respect of assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. It is in this back drop that the Department preferred appeals against all these years of CIT (A) and in respect of three assessment years i.e. assessment years 1999-2000, 2003-04 and 2004-05. Three appeals have been disposed of by a common order dated 18th July, 2008 against which these appeals are preferred by the Revenue under Section 260 A of the Act. The aforesaid factual narration would clearly demonstrate t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
