9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by a single consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. In this case, assessee filed the appeal before the learned CIT(A) challenging the following additions : 1. Amortisation of investments under the 'Head to Maturity' category - Rs.3,13,61,004/- a. The learned ACIT erred in disallowing a sum of Rs.3,13,61,004/- being the amortization of investments in the 'Held to Maturity' category. b. The learned ACIT ought to have observed that in the present case, the 'Held to Maturity' category of investments of the Appellant represents stock-in-trade and hence the amortization of the same represents expenditure. Further the profit/loss on sale of investment under Held to Maturity is also being offered as business profit/loss and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the financial year 2002-03. b. The learned ACIT ought to have appreciated that the observation in the Tax Audit Report is not conclusive of the nature of the expense. c. The learned ACIT ought to have appreciated the treatment adopted by the Appellant is in accordance with the SEBI guidelines and that the expenditure is not a contingent liability and an allowable revenue expenditure. d. The learned ACIT has erred in not placing reliance on judicial precedents in this regard. The learned ACIT ought to have placed reliance on the decision of the Madras Tribunal in the case of SSI Ltd. Vs. DCIT (85 TTJ 1049) wherein it was held that such expenditure was allowable as revenue in nature. 5. Capital expenditure on purchase of softwar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve observed that the same represents business loss. c. Notwithstanding the above, the learned ACIT ought to have appreciated that the same represents a revenue expenditure allowable under section 37 of the Act. 7. Depreciation on leased assets - Rs.45,11,260 a. The learned ACIT erred in disallowing a sum of Rs.45,11,260/- being the depreciation on assets leased to M/s Rajender Steels & Others. b. The learned ACIT ought to have taken cognizance of the valuation report of the departmental valuation officers in the appellant's own case before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 1994-95 to 1997-98 while making the adjustment. 8 Deduction under section 80M - Rs.6,45,800/- a. The learned ACIT has er ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions for frauds d) Disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 4. According to the assessee, learned CIT(A) can refuse to consider the appeals on merit, provided all these items are considered by the learned CIT in revision order. According to the assessee none of these issues were matter of grounds of appeal before him against the order passed under section 143(3). However, we find, though not extensively argued one of the grounds taken by the learned CIT(A) with reference to section 14A of the Act, whether it is on the same line or so, which is on different ground, we are not aware. At the most, if at all only such grounds that was considered by the learned CIT and remanded, learned CIT(A) could not consider. Refusal of the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
