2011 (9) TMI 1019

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd Shri Nikhil Pathak ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM This appeal by the department is directed against the orders of the CIT(A)-II Nasik dated 30-12-2009 on the following 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case CIT(A) erred in allowing the 1/5th of the stamp duty expenses, incurred in respect of amalgamation done in F.Y. 2003-04, paid late i.e. in April 2007. 2. On the facts....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... justified in disallowing the claim u/s 35DD of 1/5th of expenses on amalgamation as the stamp duty of ₹ 1,16,85,310/- was actually paid on 26-4-2007 relevant to A.Y. 2008-09 by invoking the provisions of section 43B of the Act. It was also submitted that the action of the Assessing Officer was not justified as the deduction claimed was in the nature of amortization of section 35DD, 1/5th of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... years beginning with the previous year in which the amalgamation or de-merger took place. The assessee claimed the expenditure from the beginning with the previous year 2004-05 and 1/5th of the same is claimed during the period under consideration. In view of provisions of section 35DD the assessee is entitled for deduction. Further, the expenditure is not in the nature of expenditure provided i....