9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell as prejudicial to interest of the Revenue - HELD THAT:- As assessee's administrative expenses are in the nature of compulsorily office expenditure which have been held eligible for intra-head set-off against income from other sources than u/s. 57(iii) by the Assessing Officer. The factual position is hardly different qua its latter two heads of financial costs; including that directly paid to the bank of ₹ 2,8,53/- (supra) pertains to the very account only as well as the fact that the impugned depreciation/amortization has been a continuing relief granted very well from the preceding assessment years, whose facts and figures are nowhere in dispute. Coupled with this, the assessee has also filed on record the necessary corre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A)-6, Hyderabad's order(s) dated 18-11-2016 13-03-2019 in appeal Nos. 10/Pr. CIT-3/263/16-17 10098/2017-18/A3/CIT(A)-6, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) (in former appeal) and u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 (in latter appeal) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, 'the Act']; respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. It transpires at the outset that this assessee's instant appeal suffers from 85 days delay stated to be attributable to the reason(s) beyond its control as per condonation petition/affidavit. No rebuttal has come from the departmental side. The impugned delay is condoned therefore. 3. We advert to the assessee's former appeal ITA No. 557/Hyd/2018 challenging correctness of the P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factual position is hardly different qua its latter two heads of financial costs; including that directly paid to the bank of ₹ 2,8,53/- (supra) pertains to the very account only as well as the fact that the impugned depreciation/amortization has been a continuing relief granted very well from the preceding assessment years, whose facts and figures are nowhere in dispute. Coupled with this, the assessee has also filed on record the necessary correspondence/show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer in Section 143(2) 142(1) notices dt. 13-05-2014 and 24-02-2015 followed by its detailed reply on 02-12-2015. We therefore hold that the PCIT has erred in law and on facts in assuming Section 263 revision jurisdiction. We quote h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
