TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oss objection is filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai passed u/s 143(3) and 250 of the Act. Since the issues in these two appeals are common and identical, hence are clubbed, heard and consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up the ITA No. 2912/Mum/2005 for the A.Y. 1999-2000 as a lead case and the facts narrated. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CTT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.8.34,335/- made by the A.O. on account of customs duty benefit against advance license which was not offered for taxation." 2."....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents to club 49,596/- ii. Expenses attributable to dividend 1,11,000/- iii. MODVAT 4,33,34,198/- iv. Advance Licences not offered 8,34,335/- v. Share issue expenses 4,10,006/- vi. Depreciation disallowed 7,48,456/- vii. VRS Expenses 1,56,51,000/- viii. Cultivation expenses 78,02,470/- Finally the AO has assessed the total income of Rs. 49,66,08,540/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 26.03.2022. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Whereas the CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee and findings of the AO and various judicial decisions and has granted relief to the assessee in some dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chases thus reduced have obviously increased the prof it. Therefore, a further addition of the unutilized amount will tantamount to double addition. The Assessing Officer is therefore not justified in making the said addition. Accordingly, the issue was decided in favour of the Respondent. 6. On the Second disputed issue with respect to non grant of benefit of provisions of Sec. 80HHC in respect of advance import license by holding the same was covered under clause (iiib) of Sec. 28 of the Act. The Ld. AR relied on the decision in the assessee own case for the A.Y 1996-97, [2007] 108 TTJ 889 (Mum). We consider it appropriate to refer to the observations of the CIT(A) at page 16 Para 13.1 as under: .......The value of Ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, was neither for acquiring any asset nor was it in the nature of capital expenditure rather it was incurred to reduce the cost to ensure conduct of the business in an efficient and profitable manner and the Respondent did not acquire any income yielding asset. 14.3 ...... 14.4 Finding: I have carefully considered the appellant's submissions and the cited judgements. I have also gone through the judgments referred to by the Assessing Officer in his order. The issues concerning the benefit of enduring nature and income-yielding asset have been adequately dealt with by the Supreme Court in the above cited decisions and by the jurisdictional High Court in its judgment in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the order of CIT (A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground that may be necessary. 10. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On the first ground of appeal the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in allowing adhoc deduction being 20% of the expenditure incurred on advertisement. Whereas the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) considered the all facts and granted the partial relief. We find that the CIT(A) has observed as under: 8. In Ground No. 3 the appellant has disputed adhoc disallowance of Rs. 1,01,13,318/- being 20% of the expenditure of Rs. 5,05,66,589/- incurred on advertisement as capital exp....