2011 (2) TMI 1536

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... his appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A) on following grounds: 1. The order of the CIT(A)-I, Visakhapatnam is erroneous in law and to the facts of the case; 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the assessee s claim for deduction towards prior period expenses. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... therefore, he is also eligible to claim the prior period expenses. He has invited our attention at pg.no.3 of the assessment order in which the assessing officer himself has noted the prior period income and the expenditure. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further contended that if prior period income is to be accepted in the impugned assessment year, the prior period expenditure are required to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Engineering Works Limited 113 ITR 389. Our attention was also invited to the other judgement of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mobile Pvt. Ltd. 328 ITR 17 on the impugned proposition of law. Since the CIT(A) has properly adjudicated the issue and we find no infirmity therein, we confirm his order. 5. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X