9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relates to the disallowance of provision for trade guarantees of ₹ 2,55,65,091 made by the AO and the same confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). 3. During the year under consideration, the assessee, a company engaged in the business of erecting and installing power plants had claimed a deduction of ₹ 2,55,65,091/- in respect of provisions made for performance guarantee obligation undertaken by it on supply of products. In the assessment framed u/s 143(3), the AO had allowed the deduction of actual expenditure incurred to the tune of ₹ 1,52,80,721 and also given credit for guarantees written back to the tune of ₹ 1,50,57,672, reduced an amount of ₹ 47,73,302 from the total income returned by the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3), the AO made a proportionate disallowance of ₹ 18,16,090/- as being attributable to the dividend income claimed exempt u/s 10(33). On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. Aggrieved by the impugned decision, the assessee has raised this ground in the appeal before us. 5.2 At the outset, it has been submitted by the learned AR that the issue pertaining to the provision for trade guarantee is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee s own case for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 in ITA Nos. 7926/Mum/2004 and 8794/Mum/2004 respectively and the copies of the said orders have also been submitted. Since no difference in facts could be pointed out by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4-05 in ITA Nos. 7926/Mum/2004, 8794/Mum/2004, 4740/Mum/2008 and 1278/Mum/2009 respectively and copies of the said orders have also been submitted. Since identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee on the said orders by the ITAT, we do not see any reason for taking a different view on this issue in the absence of any material change in the facts of the case and thus the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this count is upheld. 8. Ground No. 3 of the Revenue s appeal relates to the disallowance made by the AO on account of deduction claimed u/s 80HHC and the direction given by the Ld.CIT(A) to exclude 90% of the net hire charges and not gross hire charges for the purpose of deduction u/s 80HHC. It is pertinent to mention that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
