2019 (4) TMI 2053

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 01.02.2017 pertaining to the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. First we take up the Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 1227/Ahd/2017. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the interest of Rs. 6,09,54,788/- by treating it as business expenditure ignoring the fact on record that the transaction between Aditya Medisales Ltd. & M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries ltd. is not a transaction between 2 unrelated parties as the controlling person in both the company is same i.e. Mr. Dilip Shanghvi as per the Audit report u/s. 44AB in form 3CD for A.Y. 2012-13 submitted by the assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 8. Ground No. 3 is general in nature. There is need no separate adjudication. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 9. Now coming to the assessee's appeal in ITA No. 1147/Ahd/2017. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- "1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as 'the learned CIT-(A)'] is bad in law and on facts. 2. Re: Disallowance of discount claim Rs.24,41,703/- 2.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the discount given to the doctors on the ground that same was not in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d circumstances of case, and in law, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to correct the errors made in the computation of interest u/s. 234D. 5. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any ground of appeal." 10. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and there is no need to separate adjudication. 11. Ground No. 2 Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal of ITA No. 2548/Ahd/2015. 12. Ld. DR did not controvert this fact that the issue under consideration has already been decided against the Revenue. We find that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case in ITA....