TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 556
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ini, Accountant Member: These are the appeals filed by the Revenue against separate orders of the CIT(A), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad, both dated 06.12.2010 for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2007-08. 2. In both the appeals of the Revenue, the common ground of appeal involved is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition amounting to Rs 20,59,42,943/- in Assessment Year 2004....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Act. Therefore the order of the Assessing Officer appealed against does not survive. 5. The Ld. DR very fairly conceded that as the order passed u/s 263 of the Act passed by Ld. CIT was quashed by the Tribunal in appeal filed by the assessee, the order passed by the Assessing Officer in pursuance of such order of the Ld. CIT does not survive. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome Tax has directed that the expenditure on road overlay and renewal expenses should be thoroughly examined by the Assessing Officer. The appellant submits that no such expenditure is incurred or claimed by the appellant in AY 2004-05. On the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant prays that the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax is bad in law and against the provis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent "Build-Own-Operate- Transfer" basis, whereby the expenses claimed under the road overlay has not been scrutinized." In response to this query, the assessee replied that the expenditure under the head road overlay and renewable expenses, the same has not been claimed in A.Y. 2004-05, relevant to previous year 01.04.2003 to 30.09.2003. But in any case in other years, the same was claimed as bus....