9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant is not entitled to amortisation of preliminary expenses u/s 35D towards share issue expenses - TCA 188, 189 of 2009, M.P 1/09 - - - Dated:- 16-4-2009 - JUSTICE K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN and MRS. JUSTICE M. M. SUNDRESH Mr. K. Venkatanarayanan for Mr. Subbaraya Aiyar for the appellant. JUDGMENT The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J. - The assessee on appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras "A" Bench passed in ITA Nos.2445/2446/(Mds)/06 dated 22.09.2008 by formulating the following questions of law:- "1.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the appellant is not entitled to deduction of the provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xation. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by his order dated 16.10.2006, following the assessee's earlier year's order rejected the contention of the assessee and upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed an appeal to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 22.09.2008, rejected the contention of the assessee and confirmed the disallowance of provision for bad debts and non performing assets by relying the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of T.N.Power Finance reported in 280 ITR 491. As regards to amortisation of preliminary expenses, the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sakthi Finance Ltd reported in 256 ITR 488, wherein the Division Bench has held that Section 35D was inapplicable having regard to the increase in the share capital being subsequent to the establishment of the business and because the assessee had not established any new industrial unit nor had it expanded the existing industrial undertaking. 6. Following the aforesaid Judgments, the first two questions of law now raised are answered against the assessee following the Judgment dated 09.02.2009 made in T.C.A.Nos.107 to 110 of 2002. In respect of the 3rd question of law relating to the assessment year 2000-01, following the Judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
