TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 1202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iner of Income tax(A)- XI,Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made of Rs. 1,64,57,674/- on account of disallowance of liability for damaged goods." 3. Perusal of the Appellate order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) for Assessment Year 2005- 06 shows that he has deleted the impugned disallowance following the orders of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case which is evident from the following observations made in his order. "2.1. During the course of appeal proceedings, objecting to the AO's action the AR has filed written submissions. The same is reproduced hereunder for convenience sake:- "The bifurcation of this expenditure is as under. Provision for A.Y.05-06....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or A.Y. 2003-04. 2.2.2 Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT as discussed above and also having verified the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of above discussion, I am of the view that the A.O. is not justified in making the addition of Rs. 1,13,05,721/-.Therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed." In view of above findings and the facts remaining the same the disallowance of Rs. 1,64,57,574/- relating to Damage Goods Liabilities may kindly be deleted. 2.2. The submissions made by the A.R.of the appellant have been perused,. The observations of the assessing officer in the assessment order have also been perused. 2.2.1. Having verified the facts and circumstances ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ged goods. Therefore the maximum disallowance which the Learned Assessing Officer could have made was of Rs. 54,41,218/- only and there was no justification for making disallowance of Rs. 1,64,57,574/-. The disallowance of Rs. 1,10,16,457/- which was never claimed as expenditure of the year under consideration by the assessee could not be justified. Thus the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,10,16,457/-. In respect of balance amount of Rs. 54,41,218/- we find that on the similar facts the Tribunal in the case of the assessee itself for the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05 in ITA No. 2164 and 2834/AHD/2006 order dated 24-10-2008 held as under :- "6. At the time of hearing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the assessee to claim necessary relief in the assessment year relevant to the financial year 2000-01 if the same has been offered for taxation and assessed as such. Various decisions have been relied upon by both the sides. In view of the factual position, we need not consider those decisions in detail and the matter is being disposed of on the factual aspect of the matter." 8. The Learned DR relied on the assessment order. On the other hand, the learned AR for the assessee stated that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by this decision of the Tribunal cited supra in assessee's own case for assessment year 1997-98 in ITA No.1728/Ahd/2000. As the issue is squarely covered being the facts exactly identical in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecide in the light of final decision in SCA pending before the High Court." 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In the instant case, the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 64,59,961/- on non-compete territory rights at the rate of 25%. These non-compete territory rights was shown in the block of assets of the company for the first time in the Assessment Year 2002-03 on which depreciation of Rs. 65,62,500/- was claimed by the assessee. On scrutiny of Annexure-"C" of clause-14 of the particulars of depreciation allowance, the Learned Assessing Officer noticed that no details/particulars had been furnished for the claim of depreciation of intangible assets. Thus, prima-facie the assessee d....