2014 (8) TMI 1156

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s' decision in the assessee's own case for the A.Y. 1993-94 and 1997-98. Aggrieved by the impugned decision, the assessee has raised this ground in the appeal before us. 2.1 At the outset it is observed that the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the A.Y. 1993-94 set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remitted a similar/identical issue back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. Further, the Tribunal, for the A.Y. 1997-98, on a similar issue, by following the Tribunal's order for the A.Y. 1992- 93, remitted the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in the light of earlier decisions of the Tribunal as well as the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders Vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). In view of the fact that the orders of the then CIT(A) relied on by the Ld.CIT(A) for the impugned decision has been set aside by the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that it is just and proper that this issue is also set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication with the similar directions of the Tribunal in the assessee's own cases for the A.Ys. 1993-94 & 1997-98. We direct and order accordingly. Thus, grounds no. 1 to 6 are a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....00,000/- on account of valuation of closing stock of finished goods. According to the AO, the valuation of closing stocks of finished goods in respect of textile division of erstwhile Mafatlal Fine Spg & Mfg Co Ltd., was to be at market value which includes selling price plus excise duty. Accordingly, the AO included an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- on account of excise duty valuation of closing stock of finished goods. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the said disallowance/addition based on her predecessor's decision for the A.Y. 1992-93 and the decision of Tribunal for the A.Y. 1987-88. At the outset, it is observed that the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the A.Y. 1994-95, 1995- 96, 1997-98 & 2003-04 has decided an identical and similar ground against the assessee. However, alternate claim for addition to the opening stock has been allowed by the Tribunal. Following the said orders of the Tribunal, we direct the AO to re-compute the value of closing stock in line with the principles laid down by the Tribunal in the said orders. Thus, we set aside this matter to the file of the AO for the limited purpose of following the guidelines given in the earlier years. Ground No 10 i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the A.Ys. 1994-95, 1995- 96, 1997-98 and 2003-04 has decided similar issue in favour of the assessee. Following the said decisions, we direct the AO to allow the claim of the assessee in respect of payments made to relatives of deceased employees. Resultantly, Grounds No. 21 to 23 are allowed. 10. In Ground No. 24, the assessee has agitated the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of a sum of 19,98,000/- in computing the income from capital gains being professional fees paid in connection with the sale of shares. 10.1 Briefly stated, in computing the income by way of capital gains on the sale of shares, the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 21,34,500/- representing legal and professional charges. The said sum included a sum of Rs. 19,98,000/- paid to J.M. Financial and Investment Consultancy Services Ltd. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee vide letter dated March 15, 2001 submitted that the amount was paid to J.M. Financial and Investment Consultancy Services Ltd. for identifying a buyer for the purchase of shares of Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd. and to fetch the highest price on sale of the said shares. The fee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 11.2 Having heard both the sides and perused the material on record, it is relevant to mention that the the ITAT in the case of Piccadily Holiday Resorts Ltd Vs DCIT reported in (2005) 94 ITD 267 (DEL) in a detailed discussion, in the context of the similar contentions preferred by the Ld.AR, has held that in the absence of a clear provision in the Income Tax Act, commission paid by the assessee to the property agent is not deductible in computing its income chargeable under the head 'income from house property'. In the said order, the ITAT has relied on the judgement of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. H.G. Gupta & Sons (1984) 149 ITR 253 wherein it has been held that deduction of expenditure incurred on stamp duty and registration in connection with execution of lease deed is not allowable as neither Section 23 nor Section 24 provides for such deduction. In the said case the Delhi High Court has observed that use of the word 'namely' in Section 24 shows that heads of expenditure whereof deduction can be claimed in the computation of income from house property are exhaustive. The ITAT has also relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Indian Ci....