2022 (8) TMI 1368

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Majority of the grounds raised in appeal by Revenue are either covered by the order of Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No.9645/Mum/2004 for Assessment Year 2001-02 decided on 02/08/2016 or by the order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of assessee titled PCIT vs. Piramal Glass Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal No.556 of 2017 decided on 11/06/2019. 3. Per contra, Shri Minlind Chavan representing the Department vehemently defending the assessment order prayed for reversing the findings of CIT(A) and upholding the additions made in the assessment order. However, ld. Departmental Representative fairly stated that substantial issues raised in the appeal have been considered by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for preceding Assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Act by the CIT(A). The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed that CIT(A) has deleted the addition by following the order of Tribunal in assessee's own case in A.Y.2001-02, A.Y. 2005-06 to A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2011-12. The facts in the impugned Assessment Year are identical to the facts in the aforesaid Assessment Years. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Income Tax Appeal No.556 of 2017(supra) has also considered the issue of disallowance of interest on borrowed funds in the appeal by the Revenue and has dismissed the question of law on this point. The Revenue has not been able to controvert the findings of the CIT(A) or has been able to demon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... We find that the CIT(A) has deleted the addition by following the order of Tribunal in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2001-02, A.Y.2005-06 to A.Y. 2009-10 and also the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Income Tax Appeal No.556 of 2017 (supra). No contrary material is available on record to suggest any difference in facts or legal position. We find no reason to disturb the findings of CIT(A) on this issue. Consequently, the same are upheld and grounds No.5 and 6 of the appeal are dismissed, sans-merit. 8. In ground No.7 of appeal, the Revenue has assailed the findings of CIT(A) in deleting addition made u/s. 41(1) of the Act in respect of sundry creditors exceeding more than three years. The ld. Authorized Representati....