2017 (1) TMI 857

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ee no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. Question B is also held against the revenue and in favour of assessee
MR. M.R. SHAH AND MR. B.N. KARIA, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPONENT : MR. S.N. SOPARKAR LD. SR. ADV WITH MR B S SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad "C" Bench, Ahmedabad dated 18.01.2016 passed in ITA No. 2516/AHD/2011 for AY 200809, the Revenue has preferred present Tax Appeal with the following proposed question of law. "A. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erre .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m under Section 35 D of the Act and it was found that expenses claimed by the assessee for first two assessments years were allowed by the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer in the subsequent assessment year could not have disallowed the same. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in deleting the disallowance of preliminary expenditure under Section 35 D of the Act. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal. Under the circumstances, question No.1 A is answered against the revenue and in favour of assessee. 4.0. Now, so far as question no.B is concerned, the learned Tribunal has accepted the alternative submission on behalf of the assessee and has directed the Asses .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e has shown prior period income and the Assessing Officer has not excluded it while working out current year taxable income, there is no reason to disallow only one part of the prior period adjustment i.e. the prior period expenditure. The Revenue fails in rebutting this proposition. We accordingly accept this alternative contention and direct the Assessing Officer to set off assessee's prior period expenditure and income as per law. He shall pass an consequential order accordingly. The assessee's third and fourth substantive grounds are accepted for statistical purposes." 5.0. The aforesaid issue is also as such concluded by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Associate Company of the very assessee i.e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X