TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (9) TMI 308
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l is accordingly, dismissed. 4. In ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in not allowing the deduction of Rs. 4,28,571 being 1/7th of the premium payable on redemption of debentures issued in earlier years. 5. We find that this issue has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee in the asst. yr. 1994-95, vide its order dt. 25th Feb., 2003. As the facts during the year are same, concurring with the order of the Tribunal, we delete the addition sustained by the CIT(A). This ground of appeal is accordingly, allowed. 6. In ground No. 4, the assessee has challenged the finding of the CIT(A) to the effect that 90 per cent of the interest received from the customers was to be reduced from profits while a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Dy. CIT (2002) 77 TTJ (Del)(SB) 681 : (2003) 84 ITD 49 (Del)(SB) we hold that the CIT(A) has rightly upheld the addition made by the AO. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed. 9. Ground No. 6 relating to the claim of Rs. 26,292 being income from AOP has not been pressed since the AO has allowed this ground in the subsequent assessment year. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee is, therefore, dismissed. 10. Ground No. 7 relating to the fee paid to the Registrar of Companies towards store of company is not pressed and hence, the same is dismissed. 11. Ground No. 8 relating to the addition on foreign travel expenses for purchase of plant and machinery has not been pressed since depreciation claimed by the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see being already in the same business. As the assessee was already in the same business, the expenditure incurred on a power project which was aborted will be in the nature of revenue expenditure. Various Courts in the cases referred earlier had taken this view. Respectfully following the same we hold that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) is not justified and the same is deleted. 14. Ground No. 10 is general in nature and does not call for any adjudication. 15. In the result, the appeal directed by the assessee is partly allowed. 16. Now we will take up the appeal directed by the Revenue. 17. In ground No. 1 the Revenue has challenged the deletion of the addition made by the AO on account of excess wastage in the production of cott....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stock of finished goods in accordance with the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the asst. yrs. 1987-88 and 1988-89. As the CIT(A) had directed to follow the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case no infirmity could be found out from the order of the CIT(A). Upholding the finding of the CIT(A) we dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue. 21. In ground No. 3 the Revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) to allow deduction under ss. 80HH and 80-I. The AO excluded interest received, rent received and miscellaneous income from the profits of the industrial undertaking. The AO held that interest income, the rent income miscellaneous income were not derived from industrial undertaking and therefore, the de....