TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 1197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., in our view, since all the issues have already been decided multiple times, therefore, we deem it fit and appropriate not to repetitively discuss the facts of each issue. The learned Departmental Authorities has fairly agreed to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the assessee. ITA no.2201/Mum./2004 Assessee's Appeal - A.Y. 1998-99 3. Ground no.1, relates to deduction under section 80HH and 80-I/ 80-IA. 4. Considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material on record. Before us, the learned Counsels appearing for the parties agreed before us that the issue arising out of ground no.1, 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3, has been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in preceding assessment years i.e., A.Y. 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 2006-07 and in A.Y. 2009-10, wherein the Tribunal has partly allowed the identical issue in favour of the assessee while adjudicating these appeals. The learned Departmental Authorities has left the issue at the discretion of the Bench. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order passed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;ble Supreme Court in an appeal filed by the Revenue in CIT v/s Patiala Flour Mills Co. Pvt. Ltd., 115 ITR 640 (SC). Respectfully following the aforesaid case laws, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. Thus, these grounds are allowed. 9. Ground no.4, relates to deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. 10. Before us, both the learned Counsels appearing for the parties agreed that this issue has been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the preceding assessment years i.e., 1991-92 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1997-98, wherein the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. Consistent with the view taken in the preceding assessment years, we set aside the order passed by the authorities below and restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct him to decide the issue denovo in view of the findings given by the Tribunal in preceding assessment years and in accordance with law. Accordingly, ground no.4, is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Ground no.5, is extracted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....loss on export of traded goods should not be reduced from the amount of profits derived from export of manufactured goods while computing deduction under section 80HHC; ii) Failed to appreciate that deduction u/s 80HHC is allowed in respect of profit derived from exports and therefore losses incurred ought to be ignored; and iii) Export of traded goods is different business activity and hence losses ought to be ignored. 16. After hearing both the parties, we find that the issues arising out of the aforesaid grounds have been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the preceding assessment year i.e., A.Y. 1995-96 and 1997-98, wherein the Tribunal has decided the issues against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Therefore, consistent with the view taken therein, we have no hesitation in upholding the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 17. The issue arising out of ground no.8, relates to provision for retirement pension payable to the employees. 18. Having heard both the parties and considering the material on record, we find that id....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and tax free interest has been decided by the Tribunal in assessment year 2009-10 wherein the Tribunal has decided these issues in favour of the assessee. Consistent with the view taken therein, we set aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and allow the ground raised by the assessee. 23. Ground no.11, is extracted below:- i) Erred in not allowing amount paid / payable by appellant under voluntary retirement scheme; ii) Erred in holding that the voluntary retirement scheme was to operate only in financial year 1998-99 (A.Y. 1999-2000) onwards; and iii) Further directed the A.O. to re-examine the claim of VRS expenses even though all the facts were on record. 24. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the Assessing Officer has granted relief vide his order dated 27th April 2004, giving effect to the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). In this view of the matter, the learned Counsel for the assessee did not wish to press this ground. Consequently, we dismiss this ground as "not pressed". 25. Ground no.12, is extracted below:- i) Erred in holding payment made to supplie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Bombay Dying Manufacturing Co. Ltd., the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dealt with the issue of professional charges paid to the firm of Solicitor for giving the advise regarding amalgamation of companies which was held to be treated as revenue expenditure. However, he observed that the assessee has paid the stamp duty on account of acquisition of on-going business along with the assets and liabilities by virtue of amalgamation of companies which was held to be treated as revenue expenditure. However, he observed that the assessee has paid the stamp duty on account of acquisition of on-going business along with all the assets and liabilities by virtue of amalgamation. The payment of stamp duty is of capital nature as this amalgamation has not only brought benefit of enduring nature of the company, it has made the addition to the assessee's scope of business venture. He further relied upon Singlo (I) Tea Co. Ltd. v/s CIT, 68 Taxman 302 (Cal.) and Godfery Philips v/s CIT, 206 ITR 23 (Bom.). Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. 29. Before the learned Comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... We notice that the assessee paid stamp duty in connection with the amalgamation of Ponds India Ltd. It is incurred on account of acquisition of on-going business along with all assets and liabilities by virtue of amalgamation. The assets and liabilities may include long term as well as current assets and liabilities. We notice that the assessee claimed the above stamp duty as revenue expenditure by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bombay Dying Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra). However, the tax authorities have already distinguished the same. No doubt, the expenditure incurred by the assessee only due to amalgamation and it is necessary to complete the registration and ownership transfer. The question before us us whether this expenditure can be treated as capital or revenue. We notice that in the subsequent assessment year, the legislature has introduced section 35DD in the Finance Act, 1999, w.e.f. 1st April 2000 to amortise the expenditure in case of amalgamation or demerger. There is no specific expenditure, which was disclosed in the section. However, any expenditure incurred in the process of amalgamation is included. Since there is no autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-87, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. Consistent with the view taken therein, we uphold the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by dismissing the ground raised by the Revenue. 39. Ground no.2, relates to deletion of disallowance under section 40A(9) of the Act i.e., expenses reimbursed to Hindustan Lever Sports Club and Tata Sports. 40. Both the parties agree before us that identical issue has been decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the preceding assessment year i.e., A.Y. 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. Consistent with the view taken therein, we uphold the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by dismissing the ground raised by the Revenue. 41. Ground no.3, relates to issue of excluding excise duty and sales tax components from the turnover for the purpose of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. 42. Heard both the parties. We find that identical issue has been decided in against the Revenue and in favour of the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 0.45%. Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 49. Ground no.7, relates to deletion of disallowance of rent paid to Bombay Port Trust. 50. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has made provisions of Rs. 702.78 lakh on account of rent payable to Bombay Port Trust (BPT). It was informed vide letter dated 23rd October 2000 to the Assessing Officer that the assessee has made provision for rent as per letter of BPT. However, the company has made petition to BPT for reduction / waiver in rent and interest. The issue under consideration is not yet decided by the BPT. The Assessing Officer observed that this fact itself has self-explanation inasmuch as the liability on account of increased rent is concerned, it is not yet ascertainable, therefore, it is only a contingent liability. According to the Assessing Officer, only crystallized and ascertainable liabilities are allowable under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, he disallowed the same. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 51. Before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee submitted that the assessee is in occupation of land belonging....