9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 1170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2/2009. In advertently, the assessment years mentioned in the nomenclature were A.Ys.1999-2000 and 2001-02, however, those appeals were for the Assessment Years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. A second mistake has also been committed that the entire judgement was confined to the Assessment Year 1999-2000 and the other Asst.Year, i.e. A.Y. 2000-01 was not at all discussed or decided. Therefore, a Miscellaneous Application was moved and vide an order dated 8/07/2011 bearing MA No.89/Ahd/2011 (in ITA No.1385/Ahd/2006 A.Y. 2000-01) was allowed. It was held that the appeal for A.Y. 2000-01 bearing ITA No.1385/Ahd/2006 to be fixed for hearing and to be adjudicated accordingly. Therefore, on account of the said direction this appeal is now fixed for hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as for construction of a railway over-bridge . The project was completed on 19/02/2000 and the Toll- Collection was started in the F.Y.1999-2000. The AO has examined the involvement of the funds as also the borrowing costs of the assessee and, accordingly, disallowance was made and held that there was no profit for the year from infrastructure project, hence, claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) would not be available to the assessee. As far as this issue is concerned, the admitted factual position is, as stated by ld.AR, that for A.Y. 1999-2000 vide ITA No.1384/Ahd/2006 order dated 31/12/2009 and vide ITA No.1633/Ahd/2006 for A.Y. 2002-03 order dated 14/05/2010, the issue has been restored back to be decided in accordance to an earlier decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an earlier order for A.Y.1998-99 and restored the issue to be decided accordingly. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal for this year as well, we restore this ground to the file of the AO to work out the disallowance accordingly. For statistical purposes, this ground may be treated as allowed. We may also like to add that for A.Y. 1999-2000, ITAT A Bench in ITA No.1384/Ahd/2006 vide order dated 31/12/2009 have discussed an earlier order of the assessee for A.Y. 1998- 99 bearing ITA No.1230/Ahd/2002 and thereafter affirmed the view taken by the ld.CIT(A). In view of these orders, now it is open for the AO to examine the entirety of the circumstances under which the staff welfare expenses were claimed and thereupo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tricting the claim of depreciation @10% as against eligible rate of 25% on the office equipments. 8.1. Following the earlier decisions of the Tribunal, ld.AR has stated not to press this ground. This ground is dismissed being not pressed. 9. Ground No.7 reads as under:- 7) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in partly confirming the action of Ld. AO in expenses and entertainment expenses as claimed by the appellant as business expenditure. 9.1. The said disallowance is basically made by the AO on the ground that no details were properly maintained by the assessee. It was alleged that the assessee was not in a position to furnish bifurcation in respect of Pooja Diwali Expenses, Entertainment expenses, Club membership f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
