9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 852X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of Batteries. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 on 24.09.2010 declaring loss of Rs. 35,44,84,222/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order 18.03.2013 and the total loss was determined at Rs. 32,61,62,800/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dated26.02.2016 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)-5/Asst.CIT-7, Pune/153/2013- 14) granted substantial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us and has raised the following effective ground : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(Appeal) was justifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t assessee had incurred expenses towards recruitment of new employees, travelling expenses, reimbursement etc. and it had paid separately for the services taken up by the TACO. AO therefore concluded that assessee had not received any administrative expenses from TACO during the assessment year and further concluded that assessee has not substantiated the services availed. He therefore held that in the absence of any justification for the amount paid, the claim of expenses paid to TACO at Rs. 2,83,21,427/- was not allowable u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act and accordingly he disallowed Rs. 2,83,21,427/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A) who noted that the facts of the assessee's case were identical to the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld.CIT(A) after relying on the decision in the case of assessee's sister concern i.e., Tata Johnson Automotive Ltd., (supra) and other decisions referred to in her order, decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Before us, Revenue has not pointed out any distinguishing feature in the facts of the case in the year under consideration and in the case of assessee's sister concern i.e., Tata Johnson Automotive Ltd., (supra) nor has pointed out any fallacy in the findings of Ld.CIT(A). Further the Tribunal's decision in the case of Tata Johnson Automotive Ltd., (supra) has been upheld by Hon'ble Bombay High Court. In view of the aforesaid facts, we following the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of assessee's sister ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
