2020 (12) TMI 676

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hort) has been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.02.2019 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of Bid loss claimed in the computation of total income in addition to Bid Loss claimed in P&L Account without appreciating that the amount of Bid Loss claimed is incorrect as per provisions of section 145(1) of the Income Tax Act and is not in consonance with the Board's Notification No.69(E) dated: 25.01.2016 and Accounting Standard As 22 of ICAI?" ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short). The Tribunal, by an order dated 08.06.2018, by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in 'TAPARIA TOOLS Vs. JCIT' (2015) 372 ITR 605 (SC), upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the appeal preferred by the revenue was dismissed. In the aforesaid factual background, the revenue has filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Authority had rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee with regard to the bid loss. It is further submitted that the assessee had claimed bid loss in two ways namely, o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... longer res integra and the same has been answered by the decision of the Supreme Court in TAPARIA TOOLS, supra. In this connection, learned Senior counsel has invited the attention of this Court to paragraph 19 of the aforesaid decision. 6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Paragraph 19 of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in TAPARIA TOOLS, supra, is reproduced below for the facility of reference: "19. In the instant case, as noticed above, the Assessee did not want spread over of this expenditure over a period of five years as in the return filed by it, it had claimed the entire interest paid upfront as deductible expenditure in the same year. In such a situation, when ....