2015 (9) TMI 329

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....acts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in confirming the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of disallowance of expenses incurred on VRS amounting to Rs. 4,29,85,250/- in respect of Bhandup unit works and Rs. 1,05,80,000/- in respect of Head Office employees, inspite of the fact that the AO had treated the same as unascertained liability? (b) Whether the Tribunal was correct in restricting the powers of the AO by observing that liability is supported by the actuary valuation and also supported by the agreement with the company and employees, without appreciating the conclusions of the Assessing Officer that the liability had not crystallized and without giving any finding....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ter alia, in respect of the issue of VRS Expenses of employees at Bhandup Unit and at its head office i.e. Questions (a) to (d) above. 4. In view of the above, the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 31st October, 2012 stands modified by the order dated 10th July, 2015 passed in Miscellaneous Applications. This Court in Chem Amit v/s. ACIT 272 ITR 397 has held that where rectification application is allowed, then the original order of the Tribunal stands modified and parties are entitled to file an Appeal within the period provided under Section 260-A of the Act from the date the Miscellaneous Application was allowed. As the impugned order dated 31st October, 2012 now stands modified by the order dated 10th July, 2015 on the Miscellaneous....