TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1743
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act')for Assessment Year 2013-14 with the following grounds: 1. "The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 58,40,04,189/-made on account of motor accident claimsofearlier years, without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,55,49,995/-made on account of capitalization of reconditioning of Buses & assemblies etc. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law on facts in treating the income from license fees of canteen amounting to Rs. 4,97,20,806/- as business income, without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....presenting the assessee and it does take time in many cases. It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that the subsequent claims are duplication of claims in respect of the same liability, and the assessee does not stand to gain as a result of this delay in accounting. In any event, the quantification of claims is verified by the statutory auditors as also the CAG audit teams, and the same method of accounted is being followed by the assessee for last 50 years. As there is no change in method of accounting, as there is no duplication of claims, and, as assessee does not anyway gain anything from delaying accounting for these claims, we see no reasons to reject the claims merely because these claims are accounting for, in the books of acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 24.01.2013 passed by the Co-ordinate bench in ITA No.2785/Ahd2009 in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2005-06 in appeal preferred by the Revenue. A copy whereof has also been submitted before us. However, the Learned DR failed to controvert such submissions made by the Learned AR. ITA No.2690/Ahd/2017 AC 6. Heard the respective parties, perused the relevant materials available on record. We have carefully considered the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench as mentioned hereinabove. We find that identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. The relevant portion whereof is as follows: "12. The ground no.2 of the Revenue's appeal reads as under: "2. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and maintain the asset and not to bring in a new asset. In the light of aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarvana Spinning Mills P Ltd. (supra) and of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Mihir Textiles (supra) as also the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of ld.CIT(A) holding that the expenses are basically on repairs as these expenses do not bring in to existence any new asset or advantage. Thus, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue in all the four appeal is dismissed." Since the learned DR could not point out any difference in the facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the present year, and hence, we decline to interfere with order of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e judgment cited by the learned counsel of the assessee. First, we discuss regarding the applicability of judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryanna High Court) relied on by the learned counsel of the assessee. In that case, a finding is given that the rental of the premises was fixed and it did not change with the change of occupants and it was deducted from the wages of the employee or employees occupying the premises. It cannot be shown by the learned counsel of the assessee in the present case that these facts are identical in the present case also, even in the respect of income from rent towards staff quarter. Admittedly, the major part of the income for the licence fee of canteen is ITA No. 507/Ahd/2016 DCIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transp....