TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1368
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal has raised eight effective grounds. 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 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce of interest on borrowed funds u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the 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 controver....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the case of S.A. Builders vs. CIT reported as 288 ITR 1. 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 ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....curred for implementing profitability and cost optimization measures, pre- payment of premium on loans, repayment of loans, etc. The expenditure was treated as deferred revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer held expenditure to the extent of Rs.98,83,350/- is on capital account and disallowed the same. The CIT(A) after examining the facts of the case and various decisions held that the expenditure is allowable being revenue in nature and deleted the addition. 9.1 The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the expenditure incurred by the assessee would result in giving enduring benefit, hence, it was held to be capital in nature by the Assessing Officer. 9.2 We find that the expenditure claimed by the assessee was on accoun....