TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1054
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al] 1. This is an application filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 240 days. 3. Mr Rohit Jain, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, does not oppose the prayer made in the application. 4. The delay is, accordingly, condoned. 5. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA 193/2023 6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 7. The appellant/revenue has assailed the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, the "Tribunal"] dated 14.10.2021, which concerns not only AY 2013-14, but also AY 2014-15. 8. The short issue which arose for consideration befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt cost borne by the respondent/assessee to its income. The sum added to the respondent/assessee's income is Rs. 7,16,77,903/-. 11. Being aggrieved by the decision of the AO, the respondent/assessee carried the matter in appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, "CIT(A)"]. 11.1 The CIT(A), via the order dated 08.02.2018, ruled in favour of the respondent/assessee. The CIT(A), while reaching his conclusion that the expenses were amenable to deduction as claimed, made the following observations, which to our minds, are findings of fact: "4.3.3 The submissions made by the assessee, case laws cited and the assessment order has been considered. In the assessment order the AO has observed that the secondment agr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to GPI. In view of the submission filed by the appellant the appeal on this ground is Allowed." 12. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the appellant/revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, via the impugned order, sustained the order of the CIT(A). 13. Mr Sanjay Kumar, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, says that the AO had rightly disallowed 50% of the cost, since services were rendered not only to GPI but also other group companies. 13.1 It is thus, Mr Kumar's submission that the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal require to be reversed. 14. Mr Rohit Jain, who appears on behalf of the respondent/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncertainty to an established business arrangement. 17. Although we are conscious of the fact that the principles of res judicata do not apply to income tax proceedings, there is another principle which is equally well-entrenched, which is, the principle of consistency. [See Radhasoami Satsang v. Commissioner of Income Tax^1 (1992) 193 ITR 321]. 18. That apart, in this case, findings of fact have been returned both by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal; none of which appear to be perverse. Thus, while exercising powers under Section 260A of the Act, we would not like to disturb the same. Clearly, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 19. The appeal is, accordingly, closed. ----------------- ....