TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 1114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd hence it was required to obtain permission from the Committee on Disputes set up by the Government o India. The Committee on Disputes has permitted the assessee to agitate only 3 grounds of appeal which we proceed to deal with. Other grounds are not permitted and hence cannot be agitated before the Tribunal. Therefore, those grounds raised before us are to be treated as dismissed for want of permission from COD. 3. The first ground permitted to be raised is against the addition of Rs.88,132/- on account of provision for diminution in the value of investments for the purpose of computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act. 4. At the time of hearing both the counsels agreed that the issue is decided in favour of the assessee by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri S. Krishnan submitted that there is no dispute about the allowability of expenses but dispute is only for the year in which it can be allowed. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Vishnu Industrial Gases P. Ltd. By order dated 6th May 2008 in ITR No.229/1988, following the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd., 33 ITR 681, held that the revenue shall not agitate regarding allowability of expenses in particular year or in some other year when the tax rates are same and the taxes paid in either of the year. He accordingly pleaded that either the expenses may be allowed in this year or the mater may be restored to the file of the Assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ution in favour of the company." Further the auditors have commented that,- "Documentation/Registration formalities are pending in respect of office building including parking area, valuing Rs.15.17 crores." The assessee was asked to substantiate the claim of depreciation as in the opinion of the Assessing Officer the assessee was not legal owner of the building. The assessee submitted that the assessee is legal owner but only registration formalities are pending. Proof of occupation was filed and the agreement for sale was also filed. It was contended that the payment has been made and the possession has been obtained. The Assessing Officer held that on the basis of agreement filed dated 11.4.2002 it can be held that the assessee was p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 the address of the assessee is shown as East Tower, U.G. Floor, NBCC Place, Bisham Pitamah Marg, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Thus the comment of auditors were only to the extent that since the assessee is not registered owner and the premises are not registered in the name of the assessee but there is no dispute about the possession obtained and payments having been made. Even in possession letter dated 29.3.2000 two premises are specifically shown in respect of which possession was handed over to the assessee. Therefore, if the depreciation is held allowable even in respect of property which was initially allotted to MMTC and later on sold to the assessee, the assessee is held to be owner, then there is no reason to hold that the property whi....