2010 (10) TMI 688

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... found that similar issue was raised in the assessee's own case in assessment year 2000-01. Vide order dated 17-12- 2008, the Tribunal in ITA No.3343/Mum/04 has remanded the matter to the file of AO for taking a fresh decision in accordance with the view taken by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Amway India Enterprises vs. DCIT (2008) 111 ITD 112 (SB) (Del.) = (2008-TIOL-97-ITAT-DEL-SB). Respectfully following the precedent, we set aside the impugned order on this issue and restore the matter to the file of AO for taking a fresh decision in accordance with the view taken by the Special Bench in the aforenoted case of Amway India Enterprises (supra).   4. Ground no. 2 is against the confirmation of disallowance of repairs and ren....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....made. It was opined that there was every possibility of the deduction having been claimed in respect of TDS pertaining to these disputed amounts. He held that if further deduction is allowed towards the TDS amount, it would amount to double deduction. Resultantly, the addition was made for the said sum. The ld. CIT(A) did not accept the assessee's contention.   6. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it is noted that the assessee claimed deduction for bad debts on the ground that the benefit of TDS certificates could not be availed by the assessee due to such certificates either being lost or not available. At the same time, it is further seen that the assessee has been making claim f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2.75 crores. Investment was made in NABARD Certificates to the tune of Rs.2.65 crores, for which relief was claimed u/s.54EC. The assessee had also brought forward long-term capital loss of Rs.11,24,058/-. The remaining amount of taxable long-term capital gain of Rs.10,00,000/- in this year was set off against the amount of brought forward long-term capital loss. The AO opined that the brought forward loss was to be adjusted in its entirety before allowing any relief u/s.54EC. He, therefore, refused to allow the carry forward of the remaining amount of loss of Rs.1,24,058/-. No relief was allowed in the first appeal.   9. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it is noted that the asses....