TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 866
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nces of the case and in law, the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 6,21,500/ - being expenses incurred by the assessee on account of taxes and duties not pertaining to the year under consideration when the assessee is following mercantile system and has not made the provision for the expenses & debited in P&L A/c? 1b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) is justified in not appreciating the provisions of Section 43B of the I.T. Act and in ignoring the clear language of the section 43B, as per which any expenditure has to be otherwise allowable before applying the provisions of Section 43B? 2a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment years in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has allowed the issues in favour of the assessee by following the order of Tribunal. The ld. AR submitted that in ground No. 1 of the appeal, the Revenue has assailed order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 6,21,500/- being expenditure incurred by assessee on account of taxes and duties not pertaining to the year under appeal. The ld. AR submitted that similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in assessment year 2003-04 and assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. The Tribunal in appeal by the assessee in ITA No. 1522/PN/2007 for assessment year 2003-04 decided on 21-01-2010 allowed the assessee's claim. Following th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed relief to the assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 245 ITR 428. However, the Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not given the relief as directed by the First Appellate Authority since the benefit has already been allowed to assessee in assessment year 2003-04. 4. On the other hand Shri Sudhendu Das representing the Department vehemently defended the assessment order. However, the ld. DR fairly admitted that the issues raised by the Department in the present appeal are similar to the one adjudicated by the Tribunal in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce on the decision of Tribunal in ITA No. 1522/PN/2007 (supra). The Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal while adjudicating this issue in the appeal of assessee in ITA No. 1522/PN/2007 (supra) placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Special Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. reported as 107 ITD 343. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the facts in the assessment year under appeal are identical to assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. No contrary decision has been placed before us by the Revenue. Thus, in view of the similarity of facts and the decision of Special Bench we find no reason to take a contrary view. Accordingly, ground No. 1 raised in the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. 7. In ground....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riate to restore this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in line with the directions of Tribunal in assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. Accordingly, ground No. 2 of the appeal by Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 8. In ground No. 3 of the appeal, the Revenue has assailed deleting disallowance of Rs. 4,95,495/- made on account of expenditure on free service to customers. Identical issue has been considered by the Coordinate Bench of Tribunal in appeal of Revenue in ITA Nos. 1381 to 1384/PN/2014 (supra). The Co-ordinate Bench after considering the order of Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No. 1483/PN/2007, wherein the issue was decided in favour of the assessee by further placing reliance o....