9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in accordance with the provisions of section 43B of the Act addition need to be deleted. See CIT Versus Vinay Cement Ltd.[2007 (3) TMI 346 - Supreme Court of India ] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 968/JP/2013 - - - Dated:- 24-9-2015 - T. R. Meena (Accountant Member) And Laliet Kumar (Judicial Member) For the Revenue : M. S. Meena (CIT ) For the Assessee : B.M. Dasot (CA) ORDER Laliet Kumar (Judicial Member) This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT (A)-II, Jaipur dated 08.10.2013 for the A.Y. 2010-11. The grounds raised in the appeal are as under :- (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in delet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ees in his order at para 2.3 of his order. The issue is covered by the decisions of ITAT Jaipur Bench in the assessee s own case for the earlier assessment years wherein the ITAT has allowed the privilege fees paid to the State Government has been allowed. Thus, the ld. CIT (A) observed that the issue involved in the year under consideration is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and directed the AO to allow the privilege fees as revenue expenditure. 3. Being aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The ground pertains to payment of Privilege fees has been allowed as revenue expenditure by this Bench of the Tribunal in the matter of Rajas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for A.Y. 2007-08 has also been relied upon by the Tribunal while deciding the appeal of the assessee for the subsequent assessment year 2008-09 in ITA No. 166/JP/2012 decided on 28.11.2014. 5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In respect of the issue pertains to payment of Privilege fees of ₹ 24,00,00,000/- paid to the State Government, we find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Bench (supra) in earlier years. Respectfully following the earlier decisions of the Tribunal on the same issue, this ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 6. With regard to ground no. 2(a) and 2(b) relating to deletion of addition of ₹ 22,23,566/- in respect of depositing the ESI an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
