9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of Tribunal in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 1999-2000, A.Y.2001-02, A.Y.2006-07 and for A.Y. 2011-12 [ 2013 (5) TMI 302 - ITAT MUMBAI] , [ 2016 (4) TMI 583 - ITAT MUMBAI] , [ 2016 (10) TMI 1037 - ITAT MUMBAI ], [ 2017 (4) TMI 862 - ITAT MUMBAI] respectively, we find no infirmity in the findings of CIT(A) on this issue. Hence, ground No.1 2 raised in the appeal by Revenue are dismissed. Disallowance of interest on borrowed funds u/s. 36(1)(iii) - CIT(A) has deleted the addition by following the order of Tribunal in assessee's own case - HELD THAT:- Facts in the impugned Assessment Year are identical to the facts in the aforesaid Assessment Years. Assessee further pointed that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Assessment Year 2005-06, A.Y. 2007-08 to A.Y 2009-10 the addition u/s. 41(1) of the Act was deleted by CIT(A) in the orders for the respective Assessment Years. The Department never preferred an appeal against the orders of CIT(A) for the aforesaid Assessment Years. It clearly shows that the Revenue has accepted the findings of the First Appellate Authority. We find that the CIT(A) has deleted the addition u/s. 41(1) of the Act by following the orders of CIT(A) for the Assessment Years 2005-06, A.Y. 2007-08 to 2009-10. Facts being identical in the impugned Assessment Year we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue. Disallowance on deferred revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- We find that the expen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tra, Shri Minlind Chavan representing the Department vehemently defending the assessment order prayed for reversing the findings of CIT(A) and upholding the additions made in the assessment order. However, ld. Departmental Representative fairly stated that substantial issues raised in the appeal have been considered by the Tribunal in assessee s own case for preceding Assessment Years. 4. In ground no.1 and 2 of appeal, the Revenue has assailed the findings of CIT(A) in deleting disallowance of depreciation claimed on Non-compete Fee. We find that before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Piramal Glass Ltd. (supra) one of the question of law for adjudication was: (a) Whether on the facts and In the circumstanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Representative for the assessee further pointed that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Income Tax Appeal No.556 of 2017(supra) has also considered the issue of disallowance of interest on borrowed funds in the appeal by the Revenue and has dismissed the question of law on this point. The Revenue has not been able to controvert the findings of the CIT(A) or has been able to demonstrate that the facts in the Assessment Year under appeal are in any manner different from the facts in the Assessment Years, wherein this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the findings of CIT(A) on this issue. The ground No.3 of the appeal is dismissed being devoid of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. We find no reason to disturb the findings of CIT(A) on this issue. Consequently, the same are upheld and grounds No.5 and 6 of the appeal are dismissed, sans-merit. 8. In ground No.7 of appeal, the Revenue has assailed the findings of CIT(A) in deleting addition made u/s. 41(1) of the Act in respect of sundry creditors exceeding more than three years. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed that in the Assessment Year 2001-02 similar addition was made by Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) deleted the addition. The Department accepted the findings of CIT(A) on this issue as no further appeal was filed by the Revenue on this ground. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee further submitted that for the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being revenue in nature and deleted the addition. 9.1 The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the expenditure incurred by the assessee would result in giving enduring benefit, hence, it was held to be capital in nature by the Assessing Officer. 9.2 We find that the expenditure claimed by the assessee was on account of : (i) consultancy fees paid to ECS Ltd. Rs.7,35,000/-, (ii) consultancy fees paid to Accenture Rs.90,50,889/-. The CIT(A) held that no new tangible or intangible asset has come into existence due to the aforesaid expenditure. The expenditure was incurred solely for the purpose of improvement in efficiency of various process employed by the assessee. The aforesaid findings of the CIT(A) are unrebutted. Henc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
