RELIANCE HOME STORE LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 10(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5996/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 October 2015AY 2008-093 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the facts and reasoning in the present case were identical to a previous case decided in favour of the assessee. Therefore, following the co-ordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 4,08,41,533/- under Section 37(1) as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who upheld the disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether the revenue expenditure incurred by the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

Hearing: 15.10.2015Pronounced: 15.10.2015

आदेश / O R D E R

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-6, Mumbai dated 1.10.2012 pertaining to Assessment year 2008-09.

2.

The sole grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance of claim for deduction u/s. 37(1) in respect of revenue expenditure incurred during the year amounting to Rs. 4,08,41,533/-.

3.

At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Reliance Footprint Ltd in DATED 23.10.2012. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that the facts in issue in the impugned appeal are identical to the facts considered by the Tribunal in ITA No. 5997/M/2011 (supra). The appeal has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Ld. Counsel prayed that on identical set of facts similar view should be taken.

4.

Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the findings of the AO.

5.

We have given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the respective representatives and have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. We find force in the contention of the Ld. Counsel. The Tribunal in has considered identical facts and at para-2.3 of its order, the Tribunal has given the reasoning of the AO for making the impugned disallowance. We find that verbatim reasoning have been given by the AO while making the disallowance in the case under consideration. Not only this, the reasoning given by the First Appellate Authority in the case of M/s. Reliance Footprint Ltd (supra) are verbatim the reasoning given by the First Appellate Authority in the present case.

5.1. Thus, the assessment order and the order of the First Appellate Authority in the case of M/s. Reliance Footprint Ltd (supra) are identical to the assessment order and the order of the First Appellate Authority in the case in hand and as no distinguishing decision has been brought to our notice, respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the impugned addition.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15th October, 2015

More judgments on Section 37(1)

All 6,995 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37(1) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →