9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the separate orders of the passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai passed u/s 143(3) and 250 of the Act. Since the issues in these two appeals are common and identical, hence are clubbed, heard and consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up the ITA No. 2912/Mum/2005 for the A.Y. 1999-2000 as a lead case and the facts narrated. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CTT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.8.34,335/- made by the A.O. on account of customs duty benefit against advance license which was not offered for taxation." 2."On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MODVAT 4,33,34,198/- iv. Advance Licences not offered 8,34,335/- v. Share issue expenses 4,10,006/- vi. Depreciation disallowed 7,48,456/- vii. VRS Expenses 1,56,51,000/- viii. Cultivation expenses 78,02,470/- Finally the AO has assessed the total income of Rs. 49,66,08,540/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 26.03.2022. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Whereas the CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee and findings of the AO and various judicial decisions and has granted relief to the assessee in some disputes and partly allowed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue has filed an appeal before the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition. The Assessing Officer is therefore not justified in making the said addition. Accordingly, the issue was decided in favour of the Respondent. 6. On the Second disputed issue with respect to non grant of benefit of provisions of Sec. 80HHC in respect of advance import license by holding the same was covered under clause (iiib) of Sec. 28 of the Act. The Ld. AR relied on the decision in the assessee own case for the A.Y 1996-97, [2007] 108 TTJ 889 (Mum). We consider it appropriate to refer to the observations of the CIT(A) at page 16 Para 13.1 as under: .......The value of Advance Import License amounting to INR 1,23,80,893 is an export incentive within the meaning of clause 28(iiib) of section 28 of the Act. This is owing to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the business in an efficient and profitable manner and the Respondent did not acquire any income yielding asset. 14.3 ...... 14.4 Finding: I have carefully considered the appellant's submissions and the cited judgements. I have also gone through the judgments referred to by the Assessing Officer in his order. The issues concerning the benefit of enduring nature and income-yielding asset have been adequately dealt with by the Supreme Court in the above cited decisions and by the jurisdictional High Court in its judgment in the case of Bhor Industries. Respectfully following the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Bhor Industries Ltd (264 ITR 180) and in view of a favourable decision in appellant's own c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial on record. On the first ground of appeal the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in allowing adhoc deduction being 20% of the expenditure incurred on advertisement. Whereas the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) considered the all facts and granted the partial relief. We find that the CIT(A) has observed as under: 8. In Ground No. 3 the appellant has disputed adhoc disallowance of Rs. 1,01,13,318/- being 20% of the expenditure of Rs. 5,05,66,589/- incurred on advertisement as capital expenditure. 9. From the records find that this ground has since, assessment year 2000-01, been allowed in favour of the appellant by relying on the decision in the case of DCIT v. Metro Shoes 268 ITR 106 and the decision of Honorable ITAT Mumbai Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to grant the provision of Sec. 80HHC of the ACt in respect of grant of advance import license covered under clause (iiib) of the Sec. 28 of the Act. We have decided this ground of appeal in above paragraph 6 (except variance in figures) and the decision rendered in above paragraphs would apply mutatis mutandis for this case also. 13. The Ld. DR could not controvert the observations of the CIT(A) with any cogent material or information to take a different view and accordingly we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and uphold the same and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the revenue. CO. 184/Mum/2007, A.Y 2003-04 14. Since the revenue's appeal is dismissed and the cross objection becomes infructuous and is also dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
