TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 152
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in deleting the disallowance made of Rs. 5,99,23,697/- being amount of deduction claimed u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the I. T. Act in respect of money borrowed and expended prior to the commencement of business ignoring the fact that proviso added to Section 36(1)(iii) of the I. T. Act was only classificatory in nature and was applicable to all pending proceedings ?" II. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the disallowance of the claim of deduction on account of restructuring of term loan amounting to Rs. 1,47,01,785/- as the restructuring has resulted into enduring benefit, it has to be spread over a period of several years and not following the ratio of the Hon'ble S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wed claim, upon which ultimately, the Tribunal in the impugned judgment, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Core Health Care Ltd., reported in (2008) 298 ITR 194, ruled in favour of the assessee. 6.1 We may notice that the claim of interest in question was with respect to money borrowed for expansion of business for an existing plant of the assessee-company. Before the authorities, the assessee had contended that there was complete interacting, inter dependence and inter connection between the existing business operations and the new plant being installed. It was pointed out that the Department had allowed such deduction in the earlier years. 6.2 Quite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decision of this Court dated 1st February 1998 rendered in Income-Tax Application No. 259 of 1998 in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat v. Anil Starch Product Limited wherein, it is observed as under : "4. The question arose for consideration before their Lordship in Supreme Court in Madras Industrial Investments Corporation Limited v. Commission of Income tax 225 ITR 802. it was a case where the appellant company had issued debentures in December 1966, at a discount. The total discount on the issue of Rs. 1.5 crores amounted to Rs.3.00 lakh. For the assessment year 1968-69, the company wrote off Rs.12,500 out of the total discount of Rs.3 lakhs being the proportionate amount of discount for the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be considered. 4. With respect to Question III raised in this Tax Appeal, this Court also had an occasion to deal with the same in case of this very assessee in Tax Appeal No. 516/2012, wherein this Court has observed thus - "5. Question IV pertains to claim of deduction of the assessee under Section 35D of the Act. In the year under consideration, such claim was made to the extent of Rs. 87.73 lakh. The Assessing Officer restricted it to Rs. 13.50 lakh on the ground that only eligible expenses are allowed to be spread over under Section 35D of the Act and therefore, expenses only to the extent that have nexus to the eligible projects are admissible. 5.1 Tribunal, however, noted that in last seven years, n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the issues in case of this very assessee in Tax Appeal No. 516/2012, thus - "7. With respect to questions-VI and VII, we notice that the issues pertain to disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee on the ground that transactions of le ase were questioned by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer's stand appears to be that the assessee did not retain its interest in the leased out equipments. The Tribunal reversed the order of the Revenue authorities, making following observation :- "35. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. As regards reliance on the decision of he Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. (supra) by the learned DR, the ar....