9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies that expenses have to be allowed as a deduction, but the only issue is whether it should be allowed fully in one year or it should be spread over a period of two years. The rate of tax for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 is same. This Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. [ 1957 (9) TMI 30 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has observed that if the tax rate is uniform for two years then, the deduction whether claimed by the assessee in the year one or two is of no consequence to the revenue. In the present case, since there is no dispute that the expenditure incurred is revenue and the respondent-assessee has opted to claim it in assessment year 2004-05 itself, the appellant-revenue cannot compel the respondent-assessee to claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. (8) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble ITAT erred in deleting the disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 22,14,030/- incurred as Debenture issue expenses for the purpose of computing income from business or profession considering it as revenue in nature which should have been spread over the period of debenture as per the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court decision given in the case of Madras Industrial Investment s case (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC). 2. The other questions, though raised, have not been pressed before us. 3. We propose to first deal with Question no. 7, which deals with the Tribunal s findings restricting the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income of Rs. 6.16 crores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.1701 of 2017 dated 21 January 2020 5. In view of the above, since issue is concluded by series of decisions of this Court, no substantial question of law can be said to arise on the said issue. 6. Insofar as question no. 1 is concerned, same is inconsequential since it gets eclipsed while considering question no. 7 raised in the appeal memo. 7. With respect to question no.8, it deals with whether the upfront fees and brokerage fees for issuing non-convertible debentures should be allowed fully in the assessment year 2004-05 or should be spread over two years for which non-convertible debentures were issued. There is no dispute between the parties that expenses have to be allowed as a deduction, but the only issue is whether it should be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
