9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of this Court. Thus, not entertained. Depreciation on fixed assets on project - Non deducting subsidy received from the National Dairy Development Board, ignoring the provisions of section 43(1) and Explanation 10 to section 43(1) - HELD THAT:- Issue as squarely covered by the order of Hon ble High Court in assessee s own case relating to assessment years 2007- 08 and 2008-09 [ 2009 (4) TMI 19 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] wherein the Hon ble High Court has observed that the relief was given to assessee in earlier years, against which the Revenue had not filed any ground, though it had filed the appeal in respect of said orders of Tribunal. The Hon ble High Court thus, dismissed the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in this regard. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 9,46,087/- made by the AO towards depreciation on fixed assets on project without deducting subsidy received from the National Dairy Development Board, ignoring the provisions of section 43(1) and Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act? 4) The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 5) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any other grounds of appeal at the time of proceedings before the Hon'ble Tribunal which may please be granted." 4. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee at the outset pointed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year in the garb of payment of additional price for purchase of milk. The Revenue is aggrieved by deletion of addition of ₹ 41,73,35,710/- in assessment year 2012-13. The said issue has been raised vide grounds of appeal No.1 and 2. The next issue which has been raised is against the order of CIT(A) in ignoring the provisions of section 43(1) of the Act. 7. We find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. (supra) had decided similar issue raised by the Revenue. The issues which were raised before the Hon'ble High Court read as under:- "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the payment of rate di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2005-06 and 2006-07. (b) Mr. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue is unable to points out whether or not any appeal on the issue raised herein, has been filed by the Revenue. In fact, the order of this Court in Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. (supra), appears to be an appeal by the Revenue in respect of the very orders which are being relied upon by the impugned order (as evident from paragraph 14 of the order of the CIT(A)). However, the issue raised herein was not even an issue raised therein. (c) In the above view, the question as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law as the impugned order of the Tribunal has merely followed its own orders for the earlier Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
