TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 1234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has erred in not allowing the entire amount of interest of Rs. 1,74,60,000/- paid to Citi Corp. as interest accrued and paid during the previous year under section 36(1)(iii)/37 of the Act. (b) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in upholding the view of the Assessing Officer and relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation v. CIT (225 ITR 802) that interest for only 86 days in the case of debentures issued to Citi Corp. had accrued during the year and therefore the deduction should be limited to the claim of interest of Rs. 27,50,110/-. (c) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that decision of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation (225 ITR 802) is on facts of the case and on the issue of allowability of premium which accrued and became payable at the time of redemption of debentures. (d) The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that according to the terms of issue, the entire amount of interest of 17.46 accrued and was duly paid during the previous year and therefore ought to have been allowed as a deduction. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of Mohit Marketing Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT in Tax Appeal Nos.157 & 328 of 2000 dated 21/04/2005. He submitted a copy of this judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. He also submitted that in that case also, facts were identical because in that case also, on each debenture, interest of Rs. 62/- was paid upfront on the date of allotment and debenture was having face value of Rs. 100/- and the redemption was to be made at par at the end of 6th year from the date of allotment. He submitted that in the present case also, the debenture issued was having face value of Rs. 100/- and interest was paid @ Rs. 38/- per debenture upfront on the date of allotment of debenture and the repayment was to be made after 3 years in the case of debenture issued to ICICI and 18 months for the debentures issued to Citi Corporation. He further submitted that hence, the facts are identical rather lesser amount of interest was paid by the assessee as compared to the facts in the case of Mohit Marketing Ltd.(supra). He further submitted that in that case also, disallowance was made by the AO out of interest payment. He also submitted that in that cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....particular rate of interest as well as the manner of payment. It was further held that once, it is so, it is not possible to rewrite the same and state that interest would accrue or liability to pay interest to accrue over the entire period of debentures, i.e. six years. It is also held in the same paragraph that this is not possible and the entire interest payment made in the initial year of allotment cannot be artificially spread over the period of six years for the purposes of allowing deduction. No difference in facts could be pointed out by the ld.DR of the Revenue. His only argument was thus that this judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court is not a good law because Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has considered the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision rendered in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation(supra) in a limited way only but we do not find any force in the argument of ld.DR of the Revenue. Rather, it is not proper for us to say that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court had not considered the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation(supra) in a proper manner. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that this issue is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Hence the contention of the appellant about admissibility of deduction u/s.37 of the said expenditure has no force and under section 37 an expense, if, capital in nature was not admissible as a deduction. He has referred to the decision of the case of CIT vs. Suhrid Geigy Ltd. 132 CTR 02 to support his action. 8. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before ld.CIT(A) but without success and now the assessee is in further appeal before us. 8.1. It was submitted by the ld.AR of the assessee that this issue is now covered in favour of the assessee by the ITAT "C" Bench Ahmedabad decision rendered in the case of DCIT vs. M/s.Inox Leisure Ltd. in ITA No.1984/Ahd/2009 dated 09/09/2011. He submitted a copy of the Tribunal's decision. He has drawn our attention to paragraph No.27 of the Tribunal's decision as per which this issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of assessee. 8.2. Ld.DR of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. Regarding the Tribunal's decision cited by the ld.AR of the assessee having been rendered in the case of M/s.Inox Leisure Ltd.(supra), it was submitted that the facts of that case are different and hence, this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that in the interest of justice, this matter should go back to the file of CIT(A) for a clear finding regarding the facts as noted above and then he has to decide the issue afresh after examining the various judgements cited by both the sides before us. With these observations, we set aside the order on this issue and restore this matter back to file of CIT(A) for a fresh decision in the light of above discussion after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to both the sides. This ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Now there is no more ground left with us in the appeal of the assessee for this year. 11. Ground No.1 of Revenue's appeal (ITA No.66/Ahd/2002) for AY 1995-96 reads as under:- 1. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the disallowance of claim of depreciation on Wind Turbine Generating Sets of Rs. 24603203/-. 11.1. Ld.DR of the Revenue has supported the assessment order. He placed reliance on the Tribunal's decision rendered in the case of ACIT vs. Mohit K.Mehta reported as (2010) 3 ITR (Trib.) 580 (Bang.). He strongly supported the assessment order and submitted that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Permission for this was also granted by the concerned authorities. All these show that the appellant was in a position to start this unit when a transmission line was available. The line for testing was charged on 29/9/1994 for commissioning on 30/9/1994. In fact, copies of all these letters were filed with assessing officer regarding 11 k.v. line for power evacuation from Arvind Windfarm to sub-station at Lamba which was done using their own line together with that of M/s.ABS Industries Ltd. The appellant has also filed copy of bill of Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. (AECL) which wass also filed before the assessing officer in which credit for power received by them in the month of September, 1994 was given. It has also been pointed out by the appellant that on 6/3/1998, in fact, Shri Bhui had stated clearly that six WTGS, i.e., WTGS Nos.1,2,3,5,8,9 were commissioned on 30/9/1994, WTGS Nos.4,6,7,10,11 and 12 were commissioned on 22/10/1994 and commissioning of all the 15 WTGS were completed exclusively by 28/10/1994. It was sated that the whole statement of Shri Bhui was not quoted properly and if it is correctly appreciated, it would be apparent that six WTGS were in act inst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st October, 1964. The building was given on leave and license on 1st May, 1964, i.e. in the next accounting year. It was held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation in the earlier year itself as business had commenced on 1/10/1964 as the property was made ready and the assessee was in a position to offer services. In the case of the appellant, the appellant was in a position to produce electricity which was produced in the month of September, 1994 itself though in a small measure. If the underlined principles enunciated in these two principles are applied, it would be clear that the appellant is entitled to depreciation for the full year, i.e. at the rate of 110%. I also find that in a group case M/s.Cibatul ltd., the learned CIT(A)-XII has considered a similar question and vide appellate order dated 26/12/1997, has allowed depreciation to Wind Turbine Unit. Considering this decision and the above mentioned facts, the disallowance made on account of depreciation on the six Wind Turbine Generation Sets amounting to Rs. 2,46,03,203/- is therefore, directed to be deleted. (Relief - Rs. 2,46,03,203/-)." 13. From the above paras of the order of the CIT(A), we find that a clea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'ble Gujarat High Court cited by ld.AR of the assessee having been rendered in the case of Ashima Syntex Ltd.(supra) is squarely applicable and therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue by respectfully following this judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Accordingly, ground No.1 of Revenue's appeal is rejected. 14. Ground No.2 of Revenue's appeal for AY 1995-96 reads as under:- 2. The ld.CIT(A) has further erred in allowing depreciation of Rs. 30020284/- in respect of machinery purchased and leased by the assessee. 14.1. Brief facts regarding this issue till assessment stage are noted by the ld.CIT(A) in paragraph No.3 of his order which is reproduced below, for the sake of ready reference:- "3. The third ground of appeal relates to disallowance of the claim for depreciation amounting to Rs. 3,00,20,284/- in respect of the machinery purchased from and leased back to Prakash Industries Ltd. (PIL). The appellant company had purchased from and leased back to PIL, Steel Rolling mills rolls costing Rs. 3,00,20,284/- and claimed 100% depreciation thereon." 15. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant's case for A.Y. 1994-95. My learned predecessor in the appellate order for A.Y. 1994-95 dated 14/11/2000 has held that explanation 3, 4 and 4A to section 43(1) were not applicable. The facts being identical, it is held that even for this year the assessing officer's action in invoking the explanation is not correct. As far as the letter of the assessing officer dated 28/7/1999 is concerned it is seen that Directorate of Income-tax (Inv), Ludhiana was investigating certain cases where claim of 100% depreciation was made and it was found that M/s.Prakash Industries Limited (PIL) in collusion with certain other parties was engaged in sale and lease back transaction. M/s.PIL allegedly used to purchase machineries from some fake parties and used to engage in sale and lease back of the assets allegedly purchased from these parties. In fact, the said parties only used to give invoices and actually no equipment existed. In letter dated 5/4/1999 of DI(Inv), Ludhiana in para 3 it is mentioned as under:- "in the case of Arvind Mills, the transaction is different. Its sole and lease back transaction where Prakash Industries has purchased machinery from one of se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he equipment in respect of which sale and lease back transaction was entered through was purchased by M/s.PIL from M/s.Tata Iron & Steel Co. This fact is also evident from the certificate of Chartered Engineer. Hence, none of the seven fake parties were involved as far as this transaction was concerned. The appellant has stated that as these items were purchased by M/s.PIL, from a reputed concern like TISCO, there was no question of the transaction being sham. It has also been mentioned that in respect of recovery of lease rentals and dishonour of cheques cases are going on against M/s.PIL and the appellant also wanted to purchase similar type of structural steel items from M/s.PIL and to adjust the value against lease rental. Some material was also supplied by them. In response to assessing officer's query, the Chartered Engineer in his letter dated 23/3/1998 addressed to the assessing officer, had again certified that the original bill of M/s.Tata Iron & Steel Co.Ltd. were also examined by him at the time of his visit to the site for the purposes of valuation. All these show that equipment was not purchased from any of the fake parties mentioned in the letter of Directorate of In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eer to the AO and verification report from Chartered Engineer were very much available before the AO, we do not find any merit in the arguments of the ld.DR of the Revenue that ld.CIT(A) should have obtained remand report from the AO in respect of evidences submitted by the assessee to counter the report of Investigation Wing. Since the assets in question were verified by the Chartered Engineer along with original bills of TISCO in favour of PIL, the existence of the assets in question cannot be doubted. Ld.DR of the Revenue could not controvert these findings of the ld.CIT(A) as given by him in paras 3.5 & 3.6 of his order which are reproduced above. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue also. Ground No.2 of the Revenue is also rejected. 19. Ground No.4 of Revenue's appeal reads as under:- 4. the ld.CIT(A) has further erred in allowing the claim of Rs. 89461823/- of the assessee in respect of deferred revenue expenses. 19.1. At the very outset, it was submitted by the ld.AR of the assessee that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the ITAT "D" Bench Ahmedabad order in assessee's own case for AY 1994-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1994-95(supra). Ld.DR of the Revenue supported the assessment order. 24. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in the Tribunal order for AY 1994-95, it is held by the Tribunal that the AO is directed to consider the claim of the assessee for giving effect to the closing stock valuation in the subsequent assessment year, i.e. AY 1995-96 because the valuation of closing stock for AY 1994-95, will be opening stock in the subsequent AY 1995-96. Since the Tribunal has already given direction in its order for AY 1994-95 that the addition made in the closing stock for AY 1994-95 should be considered as addition in opening stock for the subsequent assessment year, i.e. AY 1995-96, therefore, this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by this Tribunal order for AY 1994-95(supra) and hence, there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. Ground No.6 of the Revenue is also hereby rejected. 25. Ground No.7 of Revenue's appeal reads as under: 7. The ld.CIT(A) has further erred in directing the A.O. to allow the claim of Rs. 39756025/- u/s.43B disallowed by the A.O. 25.1. Brief facts regarding this issue till the assessment stage ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rged subsequent to the date of merger. Besides this, Arvind Mills Ltd. has issued shares of face value of Rs. 8,77,707 against which deduction u/s.43B for of Rs. 3,50,82,817 was being claimed. As per the scheme this interest was to be converted into share of Rs. 100 each which meant 3,50,828 shares of Ashoka Mills Ltd which were to be converted into shares of Arvind Mills Ltd. in the ratio of 4:1. The Assessing Officer held that it could not be said to be for discharge of liability which stood discharged on allotment of shares of Ashoka Mills Ltd. on a date prior to the date of merger. The assessing officer, thereafter, referred to the entries passed on account of amalgamation and stated that no specific entry, incorporating interest liability of financial institutions which were claimed, could be noticed. 11.3. According to the assessing officer, in the Scheme of BIFR the appellant was given concession of non-payment of interest by way of conversion into equity to reduce the burden of escalation of interest and that concession could not be used for claiming such a huge deduction of Rs. 3.5 crores, when the amount was being actually paid out of liquid fund of the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT vs. E.H. Kathawala & Co. as reported in (1982) 9 Taxmann.com 77 (Bang). 29. We heard the rival submissions. We find that the case of AO is that although the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.43B of the Act in respect of conversion of outstanding interest into loan on 31.3.94, i.e. before the date of merger but since there is a letter from Department to BIFR dated 21/06/1995 stating that the company did not require exemptions u/ss.41(1) and 43B of the Act. It is also noted that the BIFR noted the promoters' stand also by confirming the position and accordingly sought deletion of sub para 4D.II of the scheme. On this basis, BIFR held that in view of this letter from the Directorate of Income-tax to the effect that the company do not require exemption u/s.43B and accordingly the relevant sub-para 4.DII of the scheme was deleted and hence, deduction is not allowable to the assessee u/s.43B of the Act. In this regard, we would like to observe that BIFR scheme is for granting various benefits to the sick companies and not for withdrawing any deduction which is available to such sick company under law. The letter of the assessee may be to the effect that the assessee does not r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Rs. 2,40,88,314 being 40% of the dividend from Unit Trust of India amounting to Rs. 6,02,20,784. Thus the total deduction claimed was of Rs. 3,35,79,507. The assessing officer has observed that this was with reference to the gross dividend received without adjustment on account of administrative and management expenses attributable to investment made and realization of dividend. No proper details or bifurcation of such administrative and management expenses is available and hence the deduction u/s.80M is reduced on estimate basis by 5% being such administrative and management expenses to be deducted from the gross amount of dividend. Accordingly he has allowed deduction at Rs. 3,19,00,532. He has supported his argument by reference to Supreme Court decision in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt.Ltd. 155 ITR 120." 31. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) who had deleted the disallowance and now the Revenue is in appeal before us. 32. Ld.DR of the Revenue supported the assessment order. He also placed reliance on the following case-laws:- (a) CIT vs. Sarabhai & Sons (1994)75 Taxman 415(Guj.) (b) CIT vs. Maganlal Cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to reduce 0.5% of dividend income, i.e. Rs. 3,35,79,507/- as expenses and after reducing such expenses from this amount of dividend income, the AO should allow deduction u/s.80M of the IT Act. This ground of the Revenue is partly allowed. 34. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee (in ITA No.2072/Ahd/2001) is allowed in the terms as indicated above, whereas appeal of the Revenue (ITA No.66/Ahd/2002) is partly allowed. 35. Now, we take up the appeal of the Revenue (ITA No.1713/Ahd/2002) for AY 1996-97. Ground No.1 reads as under:- 1. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 7780932/- on account of capital gains on sale of the business undertaking. 35.1. Brief facts on this issue till the assessment stage are that the assessee has sold its business undertaking Artex to Akir Textile Industrial Pvt.Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 467.97 lacs. The AO has stated that the assessee had offered long-term capital gains of Rs. 3,57,64,969/- on sale of undertaking in the return of income but in the covering letter of the return, it was claimed by the assessee that this amount should not be treated as income under the head "long term capit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of its business undertaking of Artex to Atir Textile Industrial Pvt.Ltd. The assessment year involved in the present case is also a period prior to 01/04/2000. Hence, this judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court cited by ld.AR of the assessee is squarely applicable on the facts of the present case and respectfully following the same, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and accordingly reject the ground No.1 raised by the Revenue. 38. Ground No.2 of Revenue's appeal reads as under:- 2. The ld.CIT(A) has further erred in deleting the disallowance of claim of interest of Rs. 247654966/-. 38.1. Ld.DR of the Revenue has supported the assessment order, whereas ld.AR of the Assessee has supported the order of the ld.CIT(A). He also submitted that the relevant para of the order of the ld.CIT(A) is para No.3 available on pages 10 & 11 of his order as per which he has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. He further submitted that ld.CIT(A) has followed his own order in its own case for AY 1995-96. 39. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and also gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urred by the assessee in that year was not including advertisement expense. It was held by the Tribunal in that year, that the entire expenditure is to be allowed in the year of incurring the expenditure. Hence, as per principle laid down by the Tribunal in that year, order of ld.CIT(A) is in line with that principle. Moreover, as per judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Ltd.(supra), wherein it was held that advertisement expenses to create brand image is revenue expenditure. In the present case also, expenses in dispute is including expenses on account of retrenchment compensation, technical Audit Fees, Consultancy fees, advertisement expenses and launching expenses. All other expenses excluding advertisement expenses are covered by the Tribunal decision in its own case for AY 1994-95, whereas the advertisement expense is covered in favour of assessee by the judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of Core Healthcare Ltd.(supra). Respectfully following these judgements, we decline to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, ground No.3 of Revenue's appeal is rejected. 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in favour of assessee on similar line. Accordingly, ground No.5 is also rejected. 45. Ground No.6 reads as under:- 6. The ld.CIT(A) has further erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 12232000/- made by allocating the expenses to two EOUs. 45.1. Ld.DR of the Revenue has supported the assessment order, whereas ld.AR of the Assessee has supported the order of the ld.CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is identical to ground No.5 raised by the Revenue in AY 1995-96. 46. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that similar issue was decided by us in AY 1995-96 in favour of assessee at para-21 of this order above and, therefore, on similar line, in the present year also, this issue is decided in favour of assessee. Ground No.6 of Revenue's appeal is also rejected. 47. Ground No.7 reads as under:- 7. The ld.CIT(A) has further erred in deleting the disallowance of administrative expenses of Rs. 1162131/- out of dividend income. 47.1. Ld.DR of the Revenue has supported the assessment order, whereas ld.AR of the Assessee has supported the order of the ld.CIT(A). He also submitted that this iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of M.P.High Court in the case of National Newsprint & Paper Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (114 ITR 172), Supreme Court decision in the case of Nonsuch Tea Estate Ltd. v. CIT (98 ITR 189), Bombay High Court's decision in Calico Dyeing & Printing Works v. CIT (34 ITR 265), Gujarat High Court's decision in Granulated Fertilizers & Seeds Private Ltd. (137 ITR 400), Supreme Court's decision in the case of State of madras v. G.J. Coehlo (53 ITR 186), Madras High Court's decision in the case of CIT v. A. Krishnaswamy Mudaliar & Ors. (53 ITR 123) and Supreme Court decision in the case of Madras Ind.Investment Corpn.Ltd. (225 ITR 802). 51. It was submitted by the ld.AR that this issue is identical to Ground No.1 in assessee's appeal for AY 1995-96(supra). The ld.DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 52. We have considered the rival submissions and we find that an identical issue was decided by us in favour of assessee for AY 1995-96 as per para-6 of this order above. No difference in facts has been pointed out by the ld.DR of the Revenue in the present year. Hence, we decline to take any contrary view in the present year than taken in AY 1995- 96(supra). Therefore, in the present ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1331/Ahd/2002) for AY 1997-98. 57.1. Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is as under: 1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in Law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of deferred revenue expenses amounting to Rs. 143767213/-. 57.2 Ld.DR of the Revenue has supported the assessment order, whereas ld.AR of the Assessee has supported the order of the ld.CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is identical to ground No.4 of Revenue's appeal in AY 1995-96. 58. We have considered the rival submissions and we find that this issue is identical to ground No.4 of Revenue's appeal in AY 1995-96. In that year, this issue was decided by us in favour of assessee at para 19.1 of this order above. Since no difference in facts could be pointed out by the ld.DR of the Revenue, we find no reason to take a contrary view, than taken by us in AY 1995-96(supra). Therefore, in the present year also, this issue is decided in favour assessee. Ground No.1 is rejected. 59. Ground No.2 of Revenue's appeal reads as under:- 2. The ld.CIT(A) has further erred in directing to delete the disallowance of interest u/s.36(1)(iii) amounting to Rs. 240129512/-. 59.1. Ld.DR of the Revenue has s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hence, this ground is also rejected. 65. Ground No.5 of Revenue's appeal is as under: 5. The Ld.CIT(A) has further erred in directing to delete the disallowance of Rs. 12345080/- in respect of allocation of expenses of two EOUs. 65.1. Ld.DR of the Revenue has supported the assessment order, whereas ld.AR of the Assessee has supported the order of the ld.CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is identical to ground No.5 of the Revenue's appeal in AY 1995-96(supra). 66. We have considered the rival submissions and we find that this issue is identical to ground No.5 raised by the Revenue in AY 1995-96 and while deciding ground No.5 of Revenue's appeal in that year as per para-21 of this order above, the issue was decided in favour of assessee. Since no difference in facts could be pointed out by the ld.DR, we find no reason to take any contrary view in the present year. Therefore, this ground is also rejected. 67. Ground No.6 of Revenue's appeal reads as under:- 6. The Ld.CIT(A) has further erred in directing to delete the disallowance of reduction of Rs. 994650/- u/s.80M. 67.1. Ld.DR of the Revenue has supported the assessment order, whereas ld.AR ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 49108490/- being the expenditure incurred in respect of loan arrangement fees. 74.1. Ld.DR of the Revenue has supported the assessment order, whereas ld.AR of the Assessee has supported the order of the ld.CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is identical as per ground No.3 raised by the Revenue in AY 1997-98. 75. We have considered the rival submissions and we find that the similar issue was raised by the Revenue as per ground No.3 in its appeal for AY 1997-98 and the same was decided by us in favour of the assessee at para-62 of this order above. Since no difference in facts could be pointed out by the ld.DR of the Revenue in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the present year and, hence, this ground of the Revenue is also rejected. 76. Ground No.3 of Revenue's appeal reads as under:- The ld.CIT(A) has further erred in directing to delete disallowance of claim for deduction of Rs. 1455578/- u/s.43B. 76.1. Ld.DR of the Revenue has supported the assessment order, whereas ld.AR of the Assessee has supported the order of the ld.CIT(A). He also submitted that an identical issue was raised by the Revenue as per ground No.....