TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1505
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....BENCH Common facts arise in the above captioned appeals of the assessee and Revenue; therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. 2. The captioned appeals were decided vide common order dated 12.03.2024 of the Tribunal. The assessee filed two separate Miscellaneous Applications (MA) against both appeals on the following issues: (i) ITA 4174/Del/2010 - Revenue Appeal: The assessee filed MA for the reason that while adjudicating Ground of Appeal No.6 challenging the addition/disallowance of provisional liability for FPI-OE components, the Tribunal inadvertently remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer ('AO') following its original order dated 17.10.2018 for AY 2009-10 without tak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5/Del/2024 is allowed." 2.2 The assessee's MA arisen from the Revenue Appeal in ITA 4147/Del/2010 was allowed and the consequential addition/disallowance of provisional liability for FPI-OE components was directed to be deleted. The relevant part of the MA order reads as under: "9. We have heard the rival submissions. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the order dated 12.03.2024 contains apparent mistake on record and the same is required to be rectified. The said mistake is rectified by issuing necessary directions to the limited extent that the disallowance made on account of FPI may, in conformity with the rectified decision of the Tribunal dated 19.06.2019 issued for assessment year 2009-20, is dele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0/-) aggregating to Rs.85,24,400/- under section 43B of the Act. In the relevant year, the assessee has claimed deduction of duty of Rs.85,24,400/-, being balance in the PLA, under section 43B of the Act on payment basis as the same has been paid by the assessee under Rule 4 of the Excise Rules, 2002 in order to cover the duty required to be paid on goods to be removed from bonded warehouse. As per the assessee, the excise duty and R & D Cess payable on such goods had been debited to the PLA at the time of removal of said goods. But the AO did not disallow the aforesaid claim of deduction following the assessment order of AY 2005-06, which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. With respect to the first issue; i.e. the disallowance of Rs.85,24....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... value of closing stock in the Profit & Loss Account as the accounting of such duties, both in the purchases as well as the closing stock as per the requirement of section 145A of the Act, was tax neutral. However, to give effect to the provisions of section 43B of the Act, which mandated that duties paid by an assessee were to be allowed as deduction on payment basis, custom duty paid by the applicant on import of components for export purposes, whether or not export against the same had actually taken place during the relevant year, had been claimed as deduction in the Income Tax Return ('ITR'). However, it was disallowed by the AO following the reasoning in the assessment order of AY 2005-06. 6.1 The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly, following the decisions of the Coordinate bench in the assessee's own cases for AYs 2004-05 to 2010-11 and earlier years as mentioned above in para 5 of this order, hereby delete the disallowance of Rs.85,24,400/- made under section 43B of the Act. The assessee gets consequential relief. Thus, all relevant grounds in this regard raised by the assessee are allowed accordingly. 9. The last issue is in respect of disallowance of Custom duty of Rs.10,28,95,484/- paid on the import of components for export purpose for which the export had not materialized during the relevant year. We have given a thoughtful consideration to this issue and are of the considered opinion that this issue is squarely covered by the decisions of the Tribunal in....