9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f depreciation of Iraqi assets without appreciating the facts and material brought on record by the Assessing Officer." 3. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision in assessee's own case for various assessment years from 2001-02 to 2006-07 and all the Tribunal decisions are available on pages 1 to 84 of the paper book. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue was decided by CIT(A) by following the Tribunal orders in assessee's own case for various assessment years. He has also given a finding that there is no change in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion in assessee's own case for assessment years 2001-02 to 2006-07, copy of which is available in the paper book. 7. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below and the Tribunal orders in assessee's own case for earlier years. We find that CIT(A) has given a clear finding that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order in earlier years in assessee's own case. He has also given a finding that there is no change in the facts of the present year. Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year. As per the Tribunal decision available on record also, we find that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y following the Tribunal's decision in assessee's own case, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the absence of any difference in facts. Ground No. 3 is also rejected. 11. Ground No. 4 is as under: "4(a) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the retention money of Rs. 45,10,040/- did not accrue to the assessee during the year under consideration and thereby deleting the addition of the said amount already accrued to the assessee, the said amount of clearly taxable as income of the assessee for the year under consideration. 4(b) That the Ld. CIT[A] has erred in law and facts in overlooking the provision of section 199 of the Act and in not appreciating that since the assessee had claimed cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2011 relevant to assessment year 2011-12. 14. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that CIT(A) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by following the Tribunal decision in assessee's own case for various earlier years. No difference in facts could be pointed out by Learned D.R. of the Revenue. Moreover, during the present year, the assessee has reduced an amount of Rs. 1,455.17 lacs from its income on account of retention money but the assessee has offered a larger amount of Rs. 8,039.29 lacs to tax being retention money not offered to tax in earlier years but offer to tax in present year on account of expiry of deferred liability period. Hence, it is seen that if the present year is considered in isolation, the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d No. 5 is rejected. 18. Ground No. 6 is as under: "6. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 51,29,656/- made on account of miscellaneous expenses without appreciating the facts and material brought on record by the Assessing Officer." 19. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision in assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, copy of which is available in the paper book. 20. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue was also decided by learned CIT(A) as per Tribunal de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer himself in assessment year 2007-08, the claim of the assessee in the present year i.e. assessment year 2009-10 cannot be disputed. 23. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this is the main objection of the Assessing Officer that in the absence of accounts and balance sheet of the assessee at the time of commencement of business, it is not possible to ascertain the investment made by the assessee initially and thus quantify the magnitude of capital introduced. It was the objection of the Assessing Officer that in the absence of accounts of the assessee for the initial years, it is reaffirmed that all the three Captive Power Plants (CPPs) i.e. 25 MW Plant Rewa, 25 MW Plant Bela Plant and 38.5 MW plant were initially we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
