AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1626
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,068/- incurred by the appellant in the course of carrying its lawful business activity. 2. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned C.I.T. (A) erred in remanding matter of disallowance u/s. 14A to the A.O. (ii) The learned C.I.T.(A) erred in concluding that decision of Hon. ITAT in appellants own case to hold that investment of Rs. 10 Crores in Shares of Cochin International Airport Ltd. was made by appellant from its own funds required reconsideration. (iii) The learned C.I.T.(A) erred in concluding that I.T.A.T in Asst. Year 2007-08 had upheld disallowance to the extent of 5% of the exempted income u/s. 14A, when in fact the I.T.A.T. had deleted the disallowance of 5% in Asst. Year 2007-08. (iv) The learned C.I.T.(A) further erred in holding that investments on which no exempted income (dividends) was received were also liable to be included for calculation of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. (v) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned. C.I.T.(A) ought to have directed the A.O. to delete the disallowance u/s. 14A of Rs. 8.24 Crores as the exempted income from dividends was Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the AO found that the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 4,08,29,371/- and the assessee has disclosed the investments of Rs. 121.93 Crs. The AO issued show cause for why the expenses attributed to exempt income shall not be disallowed, in compliance the assessee has filed the explanation on 24.02.2013. Whereas the AO has relied on the various facts, judicial decisions and applied the provisions of Sec. 14A r.w.r 8D and made disallowance of Rs. 5.26 Crs. 2.4 The next disputed is with respect to depreciation on house property, the AO found that the assessee company while computing income under the business and profession has disclosed income from house property after claiming the deduction u/s 24 of the Act. Further it was found that the assessee has added back proportionate expenses on Air India Building for the floor space let out and the proportionate amount of depreciation on the rented portion was not excluded from the claim of depreciation. Since the assessee has not filed the details the AO has made an ad-hoc addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- as made in the preceding Years. 2.5 Further the A.O found that the assessee in preceding year find has made a provision under the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee and the revenue has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing in the assessee appeal, the Ld. AR made submissions on the grounds of appeal pertaining to disallowance of Sec. 14A of the Act, disallowance of depreciation on Air India Building, disallowance of amount due to allied air services, prior period expenses and prior period adjustment. Further substantiated that most of the issues are decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the earlier Years and produced the copy of the orders and substantiated the submissions with the factual paper book, submissions and chart and prayed for allowing the appeal. Per Contra, the Ld. DR has supported the order of the CIT(A). 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Ld. AR contentions on the first disputed issue with respect to penalty and fines, as they are compensative in nature and it was paid in the course of carrying the business activity and has to be treated as allowable deduction and relied on the Hon'ble Tribunal order in assessee's own case for the earlier A.Ys 2008-09 and 2009-10. We considered it appropriate to refer to the decision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir Transportation business and the fine/penalty is paid on account of default/non-compliance of laws by the passengers and not by the assessee. We further note the following: (a) As submitted above the fine/penalty which is paid by the assessee is not for any infraction of law by the assessee but assessee becomes liable for payment of such fines/penalties either on account of the passengers carried by the assessee-aircraft not possessing proper or sufficient documents for enabling them entry in the foreign country or because of the Immigration Authorities in foreign countries being not satisfied with the documents of the passengers. (b) The documents carried by the passengers are duly checked by the assessee's staff at the time of departure from Indian Airport and also checked by the Immigration Authorities of the Govt. of India at the Airport of departure. 12. From the above it will be obvious that the assessee has neither carried on any illegal activity nor committed any breach of law. However, in accordance with the International Air Transport laws the assessee becomes liable to pay such penalties/fines to the Immigration Authority of foreign count....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for AY 2008-09. The Tribunal has decided this issue in favour of assessee vide Para 24 to 25, which read as under: - "24. We noted that this issue is also covered by the Tribunal's decision in assessee's own case for AY.2007-08. Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us stated that total dividend received by assessee is as under: (e) Total Dividend Received NACIL (I) Foreign Dividend 27,96,151.39 NACIL (A) Foreign Dividend 2,11,18,743.39 Total Rs. 2,39,14,898.63 25. He stated that this foreign dividend is not exempt and assessee has not claimed any exemption u/s.14A of the Act. Hence, he stated that once there is no exempt income, the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Ballarpur Industries Limited in Income Tax Appeal No.51 of 2016, wherein this issue has been considered following the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chem invest Limited vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) held as under: - "On hearing the learned Counsel for the Department and on a perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that both the Authorities have recorded a clear finding o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction of the A.O. Accordingly, we do not find infirmity on the decision of the CIT(A) on this disputed issue and uphold the same and dismiss this ground of appeal of the assessee. 8. Next disputed issue is with respect to addition of write off of amount pertaining to airlines allied services in respect of wholly owned subsidiary companies.. The Ld. AR contended that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO, overlooking the facts that the amount was written off in the books of accounts. We found that this issue is covered by the assessee's own case for the A.Y 2009-10. We considered it appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2009-10 in ITA No.3383/Mum/2014 (Recalled order for limited purpose) dated 06.06.2022 observed at Para 2 to 9 of the order read as under: 2. It is submitted that the said appeal was filed on various grounds and the same was decided by the Hon'ble ITAT on 08/08/2019 alongwith the Revenue's appeal in ITA No.3136/Mum/2014 by way of a consolidated order. It is pertinent to point out that while passing the said order, the Hon'ble ITAT Bench "B", Mumbai inadvertently omitted to dispose of Grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entatives and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that such dues were recoverable by the assessee from Airline Allied Services Ltd on account of reimbursable costs / expenditure incurred by the subsidiary company. The transactions with the said subsidiary company was found in previous year also as per the materials available on record. It is also evident that the assessee's Audit Committee had stated that said amount should be written off by the assessee company and the same was said to be approved by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 24/11/2007. Since then, the said amount has been written off in its books. Similar practice also prevailed in F.Y. 2008-09. The Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) did not have any evidence to controvert the same. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that such addition has been made by mere surmise and conjecture. 7. Thus, it is a settled position in law that it is not necessary for the assessee to prove that any amount due / debt which has become irrecoverable but it has written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's books, need not be proved as bad debt by the assessee. We wou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appellant submits that the settlement agreement with Tata Consultancy Limited (TCS) was dated 12th July, 2010 and Citibank was dated 5th August, 2010. The Appellant submits that as the agreement pertained to receivables for earlier Years which was already offered to tax in the earlier Years and which were outstanding in the books of the Appellant, and as the agreements were executed before the finalization of the Balance sheet, the effect of these agreements was considered in the balance sheet for the year ending 31st March, 2010. The Appellant submits that action of the Appellant is in consonance with 'Accounting Standard - 4 - Contingencies and Events Occurring after the Balance Sheet Date'. Para 8.1 and 8.2 of the said Accounting Standard reads as under- "8.1 Events which occur between the balance sheet date and the date on which the financial statements are approved, may indicate the need for adjustments to assets and liabilities as at the balance sheet date or may require disclosure. 8.2 Adjustments to assets and liabilities are required for events occurring after the balance sheet date that provide additional information materially affecting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....age no. 1 to 3) 2. Extract of Schedule 'U' on 'Prior Period Adjustments' to the audited financial statements for the financial year 2009-10 (enclosed at page 4) 3. Extract of Note 38 on 'Rental Receipts from Air India Building' to the audited financial statements for the financial year 2009-10 (enclosed at page no. 5 to 6) 4. Copy of settlement agreement with Tata Consultancy Limited (TCS) dated July 12, 2010 (enclosed at page no. 7 to 10) 5. Copy of settlement agreement with Citibank dated August 05, 2010 (enclosed at page no. 11 to 18). the Ld. AR referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the A.Y 2009-10 in ITA No.3383/Mum/2014 & Ors dated 08.08.2019 observed at Para 11 to 13 of the order read as under: 11. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is prior period expenses of Rs. 33,44,64,578/-. For this assessee has raised the following ground No. 5:- "5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition made of Prior Period Expenses of Rs. 33,44,64,578/-" 12. This issue is also covered by the decisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usiness activity. 2. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned C.I.T.(A) erred in remanding matter of disallowance u/s. 14A to the A.O. (ii) The learned C.I.T.(A) erred in concluding that decision of Hon. ITAT in appellants own case to hold that investment of Rs. 10 Crores in Shares of Cochin International Airport Ltd. was made by appellant from its own funds required reconsideration. (iii) The learned C.I.T. (A) erred in concluding that I.T.A.T in Asst. Year 2007-08 had upheld disallowance to the extent of 5% of the exempted income u/s. 14A, when in fact the I.T.A.T. had deleted the disallowance of 5% in Asst. Year 2007-08. (iv) The learned C.I.T. (A) further erred in holding that investments on which no exempted income (dividends) was received were also liable to be included for calculation of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. (v) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned C.I.T.(A) ought to have directed the A.O. to delete the disallowance u/s.14A of Rs. 10.49 Crores as the exempted income from dividends was Rs. 1.20 Crore only. Without Prejudice to above: It is su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7/Kol/2014, DCIT Vs. Narayani Ispat Pvt Ltd has observed at page 3 Para 7 as under: 7. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, AO has disallowed the interest expenses incurred by the assessee on account of late deposit of service tax and TDS after having reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) (Supra). The relevant extract of the judgment reads as under : FACTS During the year under consideration, the assessee failed to pay advance tax equivalent to 75 per cent of estimated tax. The Assessing Officer levied interest under section 215 as well as under section 139. The assessee claimed that since taxes which were payable were delayed, the assessee's financial resources increased which were available for business purposes. Hence, the interest which was paid to the Government was interest on capital that would be borrowed by the assessee otherwise. Hence, the amounts should be allowed as deduction. The revenue did not allow such deduction. The High Court affirmed the view. On appeal to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est on delayed payment is not in the nature of penalty in the instant case on hand. The issue of delay in the payment of service tax is directly covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lachmandas Mathura Vs. CIT reported in 254 ITR 799 in favour of assessee. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below : "The High Court has proceeded on the basis that the interest on arrears of sales tax is penal in nature and has rejected the contention of the assessee that it is compensatory in nature. In taking the said view the High Court has placed reliance on its Full Bench's decision in Saraya Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 387 (All.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-assessee states that the said judgment of the Full Bench has been reversed by the larger Bench of the High Court in Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. v. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 732 (All.) (FB), wherein it has been held that interest on arrears of tax is compensatory in nature and not penal. This question has also been considered by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 830 of 1979 titled Saraya Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT decided on 29-2-1996. In that view of the mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve carefully heard the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record. So far as the nature of interest payment u/s 234 is concerned, there could be no quarrel as to the nature thereof since it is settled legal position that the character of such interest payment is compensatory in nature in the sense that it is payable by the assessee to the revenue for delayed payment of its dues. The said proposition is clearly borne out of the following judicial pronouncements: - No. Case Title Judicial Authority Cittion 1 Anjum MH Ghaswala and Ors Hon'ble SC 252 ITR 1 2 CIT Vs. Kotal Mahindra Fin Ltd Hon'ble Bombay HC 265 ITR 119 3 Raju Bhojwani Vs CIT Hon'ble Delhi HC 13 Taxman 221 4 CIT Vs Anand Prakash Hon'ble Delhi HC 316 ITR 141 4.2 Proceedings further, the submissions of Ld. AR that the disallowance could not be made u/s 40(a)(ii) since the expression tax did not include interest, is also tenable in view of the following judicial pronouncements: - No. Case Title Judicial Authority Cittion 1 Harshad Shantilal Mehta Vs Custodian and ors Hon'ble SC 231 ITR 871 2 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rest paid by the assessee under protest, was nothing but the money kept in trust before the revenue and the expenditure in that respect could not be said to have even crystallized during impugned AY and therefore, there could be no occasion to consider the question that whether the same was an admissible expenditure during impugned AY. Viewing from any angle, the deduction of this expenditure either u/s 37(1) or 36(1)(iii) could not be allowed to the assessee. We order so. The grounds stand dismissed to that extent. 4.5 Having held so, we find substantial force in the argument that the refund of interest amount as received by assessee in the subsequent AY and offered to tax, could not be brought to tax in that AY since the same was mere refund of the money kept under trust and paid under protest by the assessee. Keeping in view the same, Ld. AO is directed to reconsider this plea as to exclusion of interest amount to the extent of Rs. 183.05 Lacs for determining the income for AY 2010-11 after due verification of the fact that said amount was already offered to tax in that AY. The assessee is directed to provide requisite documentary evidences, in this regard, to bolster h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t paid and the expenditure incurred in that connection is in no way connected with preserving or promoting the business of the assessee. This is not expenditure which is incurred and which has to be taken into account before the profits of the business are calculated. The liability in the case of payment of income-tax and interest for delayed payment of income-tax or advance tax arises on the computation of the profits and gains of business. The tax which is payable is on the assessee's income after the income is determined. This cannot, therefore, be considered as an expenditure for the purpose of earning any income or profits. Interest which is paid for delayed payment of advance tax on such income cannot be considered as expenditure wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Under the Act, the payment of such interest is inextricably connected with the assessee's tax liability. If income-tax itself is not permissible deduction under section 37, any interest payable for default committed by the assessee in discharging his statutory objection under the Act, which is calculated with reference to the tax on income, cannot be allowed as a deduction. Therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iew of the above judgment, there remains no doubt that the interest expense on the delayed payment of service tax is allowable deduction. The above principles can be applied to the interest expenses levied on account of delayed payment of TDS as it relates to the expenses claimed by the assessee which are subject to the TDS provisions. The assessee claims the specified expenses of certain amount in its profit & loss account and thereafter the assessee from the payment to the party deducts certain percentage as specified under the Act as TDS and pays to the Government Exchequer. The amount of TDS represents the amount of income tax of the party on whose behalf the payment was deducted & paid to the Government Exchequer. Thus the TDS amount does not represent the tax of the assessee but it is the tax of the party which has been paid by the assessee. Thus any delay in the payment of TDS by the assessee cannot be linked to the income tax of the assessee and consequently the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1998) reported in 230 IT 733 cannot be applied to the case on hand.' 6. Being consisten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section 201(1A) upon late payment of TDS also cannot be disallowed under section 40(a)(ii). We considering the judicial decisions of Hon'ble Tribunal and observed that the assessee is entitled for claim of deduction of interest on TDS liability and allow this ground of appeal in favour of the assessee. In the result, the assessee appeal is partly allowed for stastical purpose. ITA No. 4486/Mum/2018 A.Y 2010-11 14. The Revenue has raised the grounds of appeal GROUNDS OF APPEAL (i). "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in allowing an amount of Rs. 25.34 crores as 'Income from Business' by ignoring the fact that the assessee has income from deposits and other advances, under the nature of business of the assessee?" earned this not falling under the nature of business of the assessee. (ii) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs 40,87,82,585/- made by the A. O on account of excess provision for obsolescence without appreciating the fact that the provision made is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case and in law the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in disregarding and ignoring the decisions of C.I.T(Appeals) erred in appellant's own case in Asst. Years 2001-02 to 2004-05 where the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. had held that " Income from Interest" on Short Term Deposits was assessable as "Business Income" of the appellant. (ii) The learned C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming action of the A.O. to tax "Income from Interest" on Short Term Deposits of Rs. 74,37,00,000/- as "Income from Other Sources" and rejecting the claim of the appellant that such interest income was assessable as "Income from Profits and Gains of Business". 19. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is covered by the Tribunal's decision in assessee's own case for the AY.2001-02 and further, the Department's appeal against the ITAT's order were decided by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide order dt.14-06-2012, confirming order of ITAT stating that the interest income is taxable as 'business income'. 20. We noted that the assessee has earned interest income of short term deposit amounting to Rs. 74,37,00,000/- declared as 'business income'. However, the AO treated t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to be considered as Income from Business. Consequently, the Assessing Officer is directed to treat the interest income as income from Business. The assessee's grounds are allowed on this issue". 21. This was affirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and answered this issue in favour of assessee vide paras 7 and 8 as under: "7. It is of vital importance to note the representation made by the CBDT to the Revenue Authorities of U.K. in 1990 to the effect that the interest income earned in England from the current account and short term fixed deposits were not income from other sources chargeable to tax in U.K. but in fact income from business. The very fact that in the year 1990, the Central Board of CBDT through its Chairman had represented to the Revenue Authorities in U.K. that the interest income earned on amounts kept in current account arid short terms fixed deposits was essentially business income and not income from other sources is certainly binding upon the department, more so when they are unable to show any difference on facts when the representation was made in 1990 and during the Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2002-03 in question. 8. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ind that this issue is covered by the Tribunal's decision in assessee's own case for AY 2008-09, where vide para 34 to 36 read as under: 34. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue has been adjudicated by the CIT(A) in AY.2007-08 and the Department has accepted the decision and not filed any appeal in any higher forums regarding the disallowance of exclusion of provisions for obsolescence transfer to credit of Profit and Loss A/c while computing business income. When this fact was pointed out, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the Tribunal can take a view. The assessee has filed complete details for AYs.2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07, wherein excess provision for obsolescence transferred amount to the credit of Profit and Loss A/c and exclusion by assessee while computing business income was not added by the AO. The relevant details are as under: Account Year: 31.03.2008 Asst. Year: 2008-09 Excess Provision for Obsolescence transferred to the credit of Profit & Loss A/c and excluded in the computing Business Income 35. We noted that the CIT(A) has considered this issue and following the findings of CIT(A) in AY.200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions for obsolescence debited to P & L Account has never been claimed for computing taxable income of the appellant and never been allowed in the income tax assessments of the appellant. 3.4 1 have considered the submissions of the appellant and considering the fact that such provisions was never allowed as deduction in earlier Years, any amount transferred to the credit of P & L Account from such "Provisions for Obsolescence" could not be added to the income of the appellant and accordingly the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 42,87,36,908/- made in respect of Provisions for Obsolescence'. 5.3.2 Respectfully following The decision of my Ld.Predecessor and keeping in view that the facts are absolutely identical in nature for assessment year 2007-08 and the assessment year 2008-09 on this 3.2 It is further submitted that if it is observed at the close of the year that the final balance for provision for obsolescence is in excess, such excess amount was transferred to the credit of P&L Account such allowance credited to Profit and Loss Account was excluded from income to compute taxable income of respective Years. The appellant has als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee is against the order of CIT(A), confirming the action of the AO in disallowing the provision made in respect of accounts of Frequent Flier Programme. For this assessee has raised the following ground No. 4: - "3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 70,00,000/- made in the accounts in respect of Frequent Flier Programme:" 9. We find that this issue is also covered by Tribunal decision in assessee's own case for AY 2008-09, wherein the Tribunal has dealt with identical issue vide Para 27 & 28 as under: - "27. Brief facts are that the AO noticed that the assessee-company has made provision under Frequent Flyer Programme of Rs. 118.1 Million. The AO required the assessee to justify as to how such provision is deductible and also to furnish the working of such claim. The assessee explained vide letter dated 25-10-2010 and noted that the assessee in a view to encourage the passengers to prefer travelling by the same air-line over flights of other air- lines, introduced the reward programme styled as 'Mileage Accumulation Programme/Frequent Flyer Scheme' over the customers. Accor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Co-ordinate Bench decision, we allow this issue of assessee." 10. This issue is covered in favour of assessee in assessee's own case (supra), respectfully following Tribunal decision in this year also, we allow this issue of assessee. We respectfully follow the above decision and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the revenue. ITA No. 4485/Mum/2018, A.Y 2011-12. 18. The grounds of appeal Nos i, ii, iii of the present revenue appeal are identical to ITA No. 4486/Mum/2018, for A.Y 2010-11 (except variance in figures) and the decision rendered in above paragraphs no 15,16,&17 would apply mutatis mutandis for this case also. The ground of appeal No. (iv) is with regard to write off of amounts in respect of wholly owned subsidiary companies. The Ld.AR submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee's in its own case for the A.Y 2009-10. We considered it appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2009-10 in ITA No. 3383/Mum/2014 & Ors dated 08.08.2019 observed at Para 6 read as under: 6. Having heard both the Ld. representatives and perused the material on record, we are of the considered op....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ead as under: Ground of appeal No.7 7. The learned DCIT erred in concluding that "Inventory" of the appellant is part of the "Fixed Assets" and further erred in disallowing loss on sale of Inventory of Rs. 35.35 Crores. 12.1 AO's Findings & Conclusion: 12.1.1 The AO has disallowed loss of Rs. 35.35 crores suffered by the appellant on account of sale of unusable old/obsolete inventory, by treating the "Inventory" as a part of block of Fixed Assets of the appellant Company. It is stated by the A that once the sale price is reduced from the WDV, the claim of loss cannot be allowed. 12.2 Appellant's Submissions and Contentions: 12.2.1 The appellant has submitted that "INENTORIES" is not part of the Fixed Assets of the appellant company but includes Stores and Spare Parts and Loose tools which are required to carry out maintenance and repairs of the aircraft and other fixed Assets of the appellant Company. It is the submission if the appellant that it is engaged in the business of international air transport of passengers and cargo, that many Spare parts for maintenances of aircraft are specific to the particular type or mode....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l is allowed. 20. The Ld. DR could not controvert the findings of the CIT(A) with new cogent evidence or material information to take different view. Accordingly we uphold the decision of the CIT(A) on the disputed issue and dismiss this ground of appeal. 21. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 07.12.2022. 21-02-2025 JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Asif Karmali, Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri Madhur Agrawal ORDER PER JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT : By an order dated 21.02.2025 in MA No. 576/Mum/2023 this appeal has been restored to file for the limited purpose of deciding ground no. (iii) as under :- "(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in allowing an amount of Rs. 56.43 crores being interest paid on account of delayed payment of service tax is not compensatory in nature u/s 37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961" 2. The appeal is taken up for hearing by conse....