TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (6) TMI 869
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mises. 2.2 We have heard both the parties. The issue of including Excise Duty in the closing stock has been deleted by the Tribunal for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. Following the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2003-04 and 2004-05, the inclusion of Excise Duty in closing stock was deleted by the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2005-06 vide order dated 27th March, 2009 in ITA No. 1635/ JP/2008. Following the order for the assessment year 2005-06, the Tribunal decided this issue in favour of the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by following the order of the Tribunal for earlier assessment year. Taking the consistent view, we hold that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for earlier years, we hold that the assessee was justified in accounting the interest on loans to farmers on realization basis. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 20,000/-. 4.1 The third ground of appeal of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 2.85 lacs holding that Export Pass Fee was allowable expenditure in spite of the fact that it was contingent liability. 4.2 The ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07 and deleted the addition. 4.3 During the course of proceeding before us, the ld. DR stated that the assessee is making....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#8377; 6,86,900/- has been deposited in assessee's bank account on account of decreed disputed compensation. It is a case of the assessee that it has not acquired absolute right on such interest because the decreed amount of FDR was in dispute. Considering this factual position in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition in respect of interest accrued on FDR in the name of the assessee following the order of the Tribunal for earlier years in the case of the assessee. We hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 6,86,900/- on the basis of the order of the Tribunal for earlier year. 6.1 The fifth ground of appeal of the revenue is that the ld. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h was agreed by the assessee and was paid accordingly. Firstly, it was levied on an excess amount, thereafter on representation of assessee company it was reduced to ₹ 12.50 crores and the same was paid by the assessee to start its business activity. It is further seen that the privilege fee was compulsory to start the business activity. In our considered view, the levy of privilege fee is like licence fee to start the business, otherwise the assessee could not have started the manufacturing and vend the liquor. The assessee has earned a huge profit even after paying this privilege fee as the return filed by the assessee was of ₹ 4.98 crores or so. 31. The department has raised an objection that the Excise Commissioner is also....