9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raman, Advocate represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Anirudh Rai, CIT represented on behalf of the Revenue. 2. In assessee s appeal, there are two grounds and the first ground is against treating foreman s dividend of ₹ .3,32,50,750/- as income of the assessee. 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of chit fund, filed its return of income on 29.09.2008 showing total income at NIL and book profit at ₹ .40,70,038/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 14.12.2010 determining income at ₹ .23,82,39,440/-. 4. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer brought to tax foreman s dividend of ₹ .3,32,50,750/- on the ground that foreman commission is income in the h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y. 1997-98 in ITA No. 45/Mds/2001 dated 17.02.2006. Aggrieved, the assessee went before the CIT(A), who also did not give any relief to the assessee. Hence assessee is in appeal before us. 3. Before us, it has been again pleaded that assessee is entitled to exemption of tax on foreman s dividend but this Bench has been taking consistent view in assessee s own case that such dividend earned when company has subscribed to chits conducted by itself and has also received dividend, the same is not exempt from tax. Therefore, by following the consistent view taken by this Bench, we cannot allow this ground of the assessee. Respectfully following this decision, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and perused the materials placed on record. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and confirm the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. I.T.A. No. 1297/Mds/11: 13. The first issue in the appeal of the Department is against deleting disallowance of bad debts of ₹ .21,45,81,730/- by CIT(A). 14. The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment disallowed bad debts of ₹ .21,45,81,730/- claimed by the assessee. 15. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee stating that this issue was already adjudicated by this Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 1632/Mds/2003 in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2000-01. 16. At the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the royalty payment is revenue expenditure. 22. We have gone through the order of this Tribunal and find that this issue has been considered by this Tribunal at para 7 of its order, which reads as under: 7. In grounds 5.1 5.2 the Revenue has challenged the action of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of royalty. At the time of hearing it was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the cases of M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. and M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Co. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 725 726/Mds/2010 dated 16.12.2010 wherein the Tribunal had held that the payment made for the use of the logo is revenue in nature by following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
