9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of claim of depreciation of ₹ 5,00,000/- on multimodal project at Ambaji ? (B) Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of claim of bonus and royalty expenses of ₹ 58,27,429/- ? (C) Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) and thereby deleting disallowance of ₹ 66,61,177/- out of ₹ 88,51,569/- on account of obsolete stock/stores especially when the assessee failed to furnish evidence to support its case? [2] At the outset, it is required to be noted that the present Tax Appeal has already been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 43(B) of the Income Tax Act. The aforesaid aspect has dealt with by the learned ITAT in paragraph No.4.3.1 which reads as under : 4.3.1. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that this issue has been decided by Ld. CIT(A) as per the following para on pages 4-5 of his order which is reproduced below : Ground No.5: This relates to addition of ₹ 58,27,429/- (₹ 25,65,772/- on account of bonus and ₹ 32,61,656/- on account of royalty). This has been discussed by the Assessing Officer in para 3F, page-6 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer has stated that since the expenses have not been proved in the books ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of claim of bonus and royalty expenses of ₹ 58,27,429/-. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises and hence, the present appeal is dismissed, so far as the proposed question No.(B) is concerned. [6] Now so far as proposed question No.(C) i.e. the order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) and thereby deleting disallowance of ₹ 66,61,177/- out of ₹ 88,51,569/- on account of obsolete stock / stores is concerned, we have heard Mr.Manish Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr.B. S. Soparkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. [7] It is required to be note that the Assessing Officer has made additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowance of ₹ 66,61,177/- out of ₹ 88,51,569/-, the revenue has preferred the present appeal. [8] At this stage, it is required to be noted that against confirmation of 25% disallowance by learned CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the learned ITAT and learned ITAT dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee confirming the disallowance to the extent of 25% against which the revenue preferred Tax Appeal being Tax. Appeal No.135 of 2013 before this Court, which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.03.2013 recording the statement of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue that such a question does not arise in the said appeal since the learned Tribunal had rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
