TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 726
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oss appeals of the assessee as well as the Revenue by consolidated order for each year separately. Some of the issues raised in both the miscellaneous applications arise out of assessee's appeal and other out of the Revenue's appeal. Since, it is the assessee alone, who is aggrieved against the Tribunal order, one MA was required to be filed for A.Ys. 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 each irrespective of the fact that the issues raised in these arose out of the assessee's appeal or the Revenue's appeals. We are, therefore, dismissing two surplus miscellaneous applications at the threshold and taking up the remaining two miscellaneous applications for the AYs 1998-199 and 1999-2000, which cover all the issues raised from the orders in relation to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 17th March to 31st March 1997. It implies that not only such expenditure was incurred in the preceding year but the bills in respect thereof were also received by the assessee in the earlier year. In such a situation we fail to understand as to how, under the mercantile system of accounting, an expenditure incurred during the earlier year can be allowed as deduction in the succeeding year on the basis of payment. The contention on behalf of the assessee in support of deduction in the year of payment would have been correct if it had been following cash system of accounting. But if mercantile system is followed, then an item of expense qualifies for deduction at the time of incurring irrespective of the date of payment. As the assessee incu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bona fide mistake. In our considered opinion the rectification of such types of mistakes committed by the rival parties cannot be brought within the purview of the proceedings u/s 254(2) of the Act. If the parties, after having argued the case, are allowed to file MAs against the order passed on the basis of their submissions on the ground that the case was wrongly argued or something left to be argued and hence the order be recalled, then the tribunal will be flooded with such applications. Obviously, such a course of action cannot be allowed. The judgment in the case of Bagona Udyog (supra) is on a point in which the no concession was made by the party, but it was wrongly recorded by the tribunal as a concession in its order. It was unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scellaneous application is about the denial of deduction u/s 35D for GDR issue expenses. 11. The ld. AR contended that Tribunal in deciding the issue against the assessee failed to note that the expenditure was incurred in the previous order relevant year 1997-98 for which deduction was claimed u/s 35D but no disallowance was made. It was submitted that similar view ought to have been taken in the current year as well. 12. We are not impressed with this contention because elaborate reasons have been given in paras 33 and 34 of the impugned order for rejection of such claim. This issue has been discussed threadbare in the light of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and....