9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ITA No.CIT(A)-V/ITA No.229/2010-11 dated 31.01.2012 for the Asst. Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. The relevant proceedings are under sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short 'the Act' . 2. We have gone through the Revenue's grounds in all the appeals. It emerges that almost all the issues are covered by various decisions of ITAT, Chennai. Still further, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant pleadings in grounds made by the Revenue in all appeals as under :- a) ITA No.895/Mds/2012 A.Y. 2005-06 : 1. The order of learned CIT(Appeals) is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2.1 The ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance of depreciation on technical know how of G. 9,49,2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008 dt. 13.06.2008. 3.3 It is submitted that the CIT(A) 's order relied upon the IT A T's order in the assessee's own case for the Asst.Year 2002-03 has not become final and appeal to the High Court have been preferred by the Department. 4.1 The ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Coke OYer project expenses of ₹ 1,68,39,0001- claimed as revenue expenditure 4.2 The Id. CIT(A) ought to have considered this expenditure as capital in nature. 4..3 It is submitted that the expenditure claimed on coke oven project has not been debited in the profit & loss account, not incurred towards existing project, not mentioned in the Annual Report of the Company and finally no evidence in support of such expenses were prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e AY.2007-08 in the assessee's own case has not become final and the department has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras u/s.260A. 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to treat the Royalty expenditure as revenue expenditure and withdraw the depreciation allowed on it. 3.2 Having regard to the amended provisions of Sec.32, allowing depreciation on intangible assets, the learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer of treating the expenditure towards Royalty as capital expenditure and allowing depreciation, thereon. 3.3 The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the orders of the Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in ITA No. 726/Mds/2010 dt. 16- 12-2010 for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , relied upon by the learned CIT(A), in in the case of group concern M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd for the AY. 2007-08 in ITA No. 320/Mds/2011 dt. 10-10-2011 has not become final and the Department has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court u/s.260A. 6. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored." 3. On behalf of the Revenue, by reiterating the various pleas raised in grounds reproduced herein above; it has been contended that in all the cases, the CIT(A) has erred in upsetting the A.O's findings qua disallowances and additions in question. Therefore, a prayer has been made to rest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) as mere pendency of the appeal cannot form the basis for not taking into consideration the opinion of the learned co-ordinate bench. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere on this sole plea. Consequently, except Ground Nos.4.1 to 4.3 in ITA 896/Mds/2012, we uphold the orders of CIT(A). 7. Coming to Ground Nos.4.1 to 4.3 in ITA No.896/Mds/2012(supra), the Revenue's contention is that CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Coke over project expenses of ₹ 1,68,39,000/- in favour of the assesse. Therefore, the D.R. has argued that the findings of the assessing authority deserve to be restored on the basis of submissions made in the grounds(supra). 8. The A.R. has chosen to support the CIT(A)'s order and findings contained and f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whilst observing that the same did not discuss about the project in question. In view thereof, the A.O. disallowed the above said claim of ₹ 1,68,39,000/-. 12. The assesse carried further the matter in appeal wherein the CIT(A) has accepted the assessee's arguments by holding that the expenses in question are in the shape of revenue expenditure being claimed in the computation of income without debiting in the P&L account. The CIT(A) while allowing the appeal has also drawn support from Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics (supra). 13. After having carefully perused the relevant findings as well as the relevant case law cited, we are of the opinion that there is no dispute regarding legality of the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
