Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH C, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI. N. V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'C', BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. N. V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Income-tax Officer, Ward – 4 (3), Bangalore ..Appellant v. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery, 1313, 9th Cross, 27th Main, 1st Phase, J. P. Nagar, Bangalore 560 078 ..Respondent PAN : AAEFC5505C Assessee by : Shri. S. Venkatesan, CA Revenue by : Shri.Anurag Sahay, CIT-III Heard on : 17.08.2015 Pronounced on : 26 .08.2015 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
In this appeal filed by Revenue, directed against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – II, Bengaluru, dt.20.03.2014, for the Assessment Year 2010-11, it has raised the following grounds :
ITA.908/Bang/2014 Page - 2 It is clear from the above grounds that Revenue is aggrieved on the CIT (A) placing reliance on Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case for A. Y. 2009-10.
Issue involved is a claim of Rs.31,75,95,820/- by the assessee as payment to M/s. Diageo India Pvt. Ltd. Payment was effected by the assessee pursuance to an agreement under which assessee was manufacturing and bottling liquor under the brand names of the said company. As per the AO, it was only utilisation of surplus of the assessee since assessee was billing for the sales in its books of account and the turnover was accounted for by it in full. Similar disallowance was there ITA.908/Bang/2014 Page - 3 for A. Y. 2009-10 also. In the said year, assessee had moved in appeal 10 also. In the said year, assessee had moved in appeal 10 also. In the said year, assessee had moved in appeal before the CIT (A) against such disallowance which was allowed by CIT before the CIT (A) against such disallowance which was allowed by CIT before the CIT (A) against such disallowance which was allowed by CIT (A).
Aggrieved by the CIT (A)’s decision, Revenue had moved in Aggrieved by the CIT (A)’s decision, Revenue had moved in Aggrieved by the CIT (A)’s decision, Revenue had moved in appeal before this Tribunal and appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal in ITA.1260/Bang/2012, this Tribunal in ITA.1260/Bang/2012, dt.05.04.2013, for A. Y. 2009 for A. Y. 2009-10 had held as under :