2020 (10) TMI 284

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tified in deleting the disallowance of prior period expenditure of Rs. 10,50,324/- following its order in case of assessee for earlier assessment year and without recording material evidence to reach a conclusion that liability to incur the expenditure was actually crystallized during the year under consideration and by ignoring a fact that the assessee had not proved that liability to incur expenditure of Rs. 10,50,324/- actually crystallized during the year under consideration? 2. Whether in facts and on circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in holding that bond issue expenditure was revenue expense by ignoring provisions of section 35D(2) of the Income Tax Act (the Act)? 3. Whether in facts and on circumsta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... reasons recorded for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act which was duly supplied to the Ld. AR of the Assesee on 16.01.2014. Consequently, the Assessee filed the objections to the assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act. After adopting the prescribed procedure, under the law, the objections filed by the assessee were duly disposed of by a order dated 12.3.2014, the AO made the addition on account of prior period expenses amounting to Rs. 10,50,324/- and secondly made the addition on account of Bond Issues Expenses and also added the excess charges of interest of Rs. 15,85,12,000/- and assessed the total income at Rs. 6,79,64,040/- vide assessment order dated 31.3.2014 u/s. 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the same, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n para no. 3.3.2 at page no. 5 is reproduced as under:- "3.3.2 The submissions of the appellant and the facts of the case have been carefully considered. It appears that AO wrongly added Rs. 10,50,324/- especially when it has been duly accepted by department in almost all years and solely additions made during AY 2009-10 were duly struck down by CIT(A)-XVI and later on CIT(A) order was accepted by the ITAT also. Further nature of these expenses clearly shows that these might pertain to earlier years but crystallized only in current AY 2006- 07. Respectfully following the ITAT order on the same issue alongwith adjudication that these aren't expenses pertaining to earlier year's fully allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Act, the addition made by A....