TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 790
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ahmedabad Bench 'C' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals assailing the following orders Tax Appeal No. Date of Tribunal's order ITA No. Assessment Year 1095/2006 03/06/03 1744/Ahd/1997 1993-94 1096/2006 03/06/03 1745/Ahd/1997 1994-95 1097/2006 27/09/05 3791/Ahd/2002 1996-97 1098/2006 27/09/05 1705/Ahd/2003 1997-98 786/2007 06/09/06 1665/Ahd/2006 1993-94 1433/2008 31/10/07 4192/Ahd/2003 1999-00 1.1 These matters were admitted by this Court for consideration of the following substantial question of law: TAX APPEALS NO. 1095 & 1096 of 2007 Whether on the facts and circumstances ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uted revenue expenses, when these items were not used as replacement of worn out parts of existing machinery but each constituted additional item of machinery ? TAX APPEAL NO. 1098 OF 2006 "[A] Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing deduction of payment to the ONGC, when the whole contractual liability was in dispute before the Hon'ble Supreme Court ? [B] Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing depreciation on all the items of air pollution control equipments and energy saving devices, despite the qualifying effect of the word ? being? used at item number III(2)(iv) and III(3)(iii) of the Appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the liability is unascertainable and hence was allowable? 2. So far as Tax Appeals No. 1095, 1096 and 786 of 2006 and 1433 of 2008 are concerned, Mr. Parikh, learned advocate appearing for the revenue submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the payment made was not towards liability for payment of gas charges but was of the nature of advance or deposit and could not be allowed as revenue expenditure under the mercantile system of accounting followed by the assessee. 2.1 Mr. Soparkar, learned advocate for the assessee has submitted that deduction should be allowed on payment basis since the assessee had accepted and admitted the liability. He submitted that the acceptance of liability by the assessee is established b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s allowed on payment basis and accordingly in the year under consideration where the liability is crystallized by the order of Supreme Court, the deduction claimed on protective basis shall not be granted. Considering the decisions cited hereinabove, we are of the view that issue raised in both these appeals is required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeals are dismissed accordingly. 3. So far as Tax Appeal No. 1097 of 2006 is concerned, question no. 1 has already been discussed and answered in favour of assessee. So far as question no. 2 is concerned, it relates to rejection of claim to allow deduction u/s 43B in respect of the payments made beyond the due dates under the relevant Acts. The said i....