2017 (1) TMI 857

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al with the following proposed question of law. "A. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and in facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 10,28,028/being the preliminary expenditure under Section 35 D of the Act ? B. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in facts and circumstances in directing the AO to set off prior period expenditure of Rs. 15,25,746/without considering the merit of the issue? " 2.0. Heard Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned counsel for the Revenue and Shri S.N. Soparkar, learned Senior Advocate for the assessee. 3.0. So far as proposed question no.A is concerned, it is with respect to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 10,28,028/being preliminary expenditure under Section 35 D of the Act. The learned Tribunal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....epted the alternative submission on behalf of the assessee and has directed the Assessing Officer to set off prior period of expenditure of Rs. 15,25,746/. The relevant discussion by the learned Tribunal are in para 6, which reads as under "6. We have heard both the parties. There is no dispute about genuineness of the claim comprising of crane hiring charges, retainership fee, O & M expenditure, property tax, repair and maintenance, rent, printing and stationery, waiver of MGO penalty, bank interest subsidy and property tax; all forming gross sum of Rs. 15,25,764/in question relating to assessment year 200607. Its arguments throughout claim that the relevant previous year is the year of crystallization. There is no evidence of such crys....