AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 983
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r based on the decision in assessee"s own case for assessment year 2004-05 and 2005-06 wherein only stamp duty expenses on immovable property was found eligible for amortization u/s.35DD of the Act while fees for increase in authorized share capital was not eligible for amortization specially In view of the decision of the Hon"ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Insecticides Ltd., 250 ITR 338. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the stamp duty expenses as eligible for amortization u/s.35DD of the Act but fees for increase in authorized share capital was found as not eligible in view of the decision of the Hon"ble Delhi High Court (Supra.). 5. On this issue, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Pune has held as follows: "22.We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions. We have also analyzed the facts and circumstances on the issue. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the stamp duty expenses to be amortized u/s.35DD of the Act stating that to be part of amalgamation proceedings, following the decision of his predecessor in assessee"s own case for assessment year 2004-05 and 2005-06 as on record. The Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal has held as follows: "10.We have perused the case records and analyzed the facts and circumstances on this issue. It is noticed that the assessee claimed Provision for warranty under two divisions, namely, Atlas Copco division and CP division. In so far as Atlas Copco division is concerned, it is seen that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) followed the Tribunal order for an earlier year in which such provision for warranty was held to be reasonable @ 0.4% of sales. No material has been placed on record to justify any variation in percentage of provision for such earlier year. Following the precedent, we hold that provision at the rate of 0.40% of the sales of Atlas Copco division is reasonable and is accordingly directed to be allowed instead of the claim of the assessee at Rs. 95,15,025/-. However, it is pertinent to have a look at a Table drawn by the ld. CIT(A) on page no.8 of the impugned order, which was furnished by the assessee itself. There is an item in the Table with a sum of Rs. 67,55,915/-, being `Expenses actually incurred". This amount will be debited to the Provision for warranty and no separate deduction will be allowed for it. There is another sum of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....3 relates to the deletion of penalty on the issue of disallowance on account of excess claim of VRS expenses disregarding the provisions of section 35DDA of the Act. On this issue, in quantum appeal of assessee in ITA No.1311/PUN/2011 (supra.) for assessment year 2002-03, the view taken by the Tribunal is as follows: "16.We have perused the case records and heard the rival contention. We observe that Section 35DDA of the Act does not make any reference to sums actually paid. It refers expenditure that expenditure can be actually incurred or paid. The spirit of interpretation with any scheme of Act provides that there has to be a holistic approach in interpreting the statutes and within the frame work of the statue itself there cannot be any isolated or secluded interpretation until or unless exclusively provided within the statute itself. We have to read Section 35DDA along with Section 43(2) of the Act and in view of the binding judicial pronouncements hereinabove referred, we hold that within the system of accounting followed by the assessee, they may have paid certain amount but the assessee has kept the provision as the expenses were also incurred. Therefore,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear and the relevant year in the case of the assessee. Further, we find as submitted by the Ld. AR that this decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Pune in assessee"s own case has been upheld by the Hon"ble Jurisdictional High Court in Income Tax Appeal (LOD) No.1107 of 2012 decided on 1st February, 2013 wherein the Hon"ble Jurisdictional High Court has held as follows: "6. So far as question (f) is concerned, the controversy is with regard to writing off of the closing stock to the extent of Rs. 2.17 crores. The Tribunal in its order recorded a finding of fact that at the end of each age analysis of the inventory is carried out by them and any material which does not move for a period of 12 to 24 months is written off at 50% of the book value and at 100% of book value if it has not moved for more than 24 months and thereafter sold as a scrap and the income thereof is offered to tax. Before the Tribunal, the respondent-assessee had pointed out that similar dispute has arisen in the assessee"s own case for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76 and the Tribunal upheld the stand of the respondent-assessee. It also records the fact that the resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome from sale of some cars in the financial year 2000-01 relevant to assessment year 2001-02 i.e. just preceding assessment year and whether same was offered to tax in that year. If the amount was offered to tax in that year then in this relevant year same amount again cannot be brought to tax and should be deleted. Hence, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and restore it to the file of the Assessing Officer as per directions hereinabove provided. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee in accordance with law. Thus, ground No.6 raised in appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes" In view of above, since this issue in quantum appeal has been restored to the file of Assessing Officer for verification of the contentions of the assessee, thus in the interest of justice, the issue of penalty is also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication as per law in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Thus, ground No.5 raised in appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Ground No.6 relates to the deletion of penalty on the is....