Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

225 ITR 802Supreme Court of India1997#111 most cited

What is Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure that provides an enduring benefit should be amortized over its useful life, not allowed as a deduction in a single year, to prevent a distorted picture of profits. Specifically, premium paid on debentures for their issue should be amortized on a straight-line method over the life of the debentures.

568

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT · 225 ITR 802 · SC · enduring benefit · amortisation · section 37(1) · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · premium on debentures · straight line method · matching principle

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 153ASection 147Section 153CSection 132Section 14ASection 263
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

enduring benefitsection 32(1)revenue expenditureintangible assetssection 32capital expendituresection 35commercial expediencysection 30book profitsamalgamationmercantile system of accounting

Judgments citing Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

Gmr Infrastructure Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1705/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CA
Section 14ASection 201Section 234B

…Court in Para 16 of Taparia Tools Ltd. (supra), discussed how the decision in the case of Madras Industrial (supra) will not be applicable to the facts of that case by observing as under: “16. Judgment in Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802/91 Taxman 340 (SC) was cited by the learned counsel for the Revenue to justify the decision taken by the courts below. We find that the Court categorically held even in that case that the general principle is that ordinarily revenue expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business is to be allowed in the year in which it is…

Gmr Infrastructure Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1622/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CA
Section 14ASection 201Section 234B

…Court in Para 16 of Taparia Tools Ltd. (supra), discussed how the decision in the case of Madras Industrial (supra) will not be applicable to the facts of that case by observing as under: “16. Judgment in Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802/91 Taxman 340 (SC) was cited by the learned counsel for the Revenue to justify the decision taken by the courts below. We find that the Court categorically held even in that case that the general principle is that ordinarily revenue expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business is to be allowed in the year in which it is…

Gmr Infrastructure Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1600/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CA
Section 14ASection 201Section 234B

…Court in Para 16 of Taparia Tools Ltd. (supra), discussed how the decision in the case of Madras Industrial (supra) will not be applicable to the facts of that case by observing as under: “16. Judgment in Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802/91 Taxman 340 (SC) was cited by the learned counsel for the Revenue to justify the decision taken by the courts below. We find that the Court categorically held even in that case that the general principle is that ordinarily revenue expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business is to be allowed in the year in which it is…

Gmr Infrastructure Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1599/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CA
Section 14ASection 201Section 234B

…Court in Para 16 of Taparia Tools Ltd. (supra), discussed how the decision in the case of Madras Industrial (supra) will not be applicable to the facts of that case by observing as under: “16. Judgment in Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802/91 Taxman 340 (SC) was cited by the learned counsel for the Revenue to justify the decision taken by the courts below. We find that the Court categorically held even in that case that the general principle is that ordinarily revenue expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business is to be allowed in the year in which it is…

Dy CIT. CC- 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. D.B. Realty Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 90/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Ms. Pooja RenderFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…dealt with in the same previous year. Thus, by application of the matching concept, in a year where there is no exempt income there cannot be a disallowance expenditure in relation to such assumed income. (Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (225 ITR 802)).” 7.8 Likewise in the case of CIT vs. Delite Enterprises ITA No.110 of 2009, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court held that when there is no exempted income no disallowance u/s 14A could be made by observing as under: “In so far as Question (A) is concerned, on facts we find that there is no profit for the relevant assessment year. Hence the questio…

DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Motors Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, for assessment year 2013 – 14 of appeal of the AO as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7550/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)

…& 244/Mum/19 Tata Motors Finance Ltd; AYs: 12-13 & 13-14 year may given a distorted picture of the accounts of the particular year, where the expenses can be spread over the years as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Corporation (225 ITR 802)?" 3. "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting the additional ground for deduction of Rs.9,97,01,832/- towards Bad Debts when this ground was not raised during assessment proceedings and was not connected with any other grounds on which appeal was filed with CIT(A)against the assessme…

The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 950/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri K. K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 36

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company PCIT-1 Room No.330, 3rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACT3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue by: Shri Surendra Kumar (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 17/03/2022…

Jt.CIT.(OSD), Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Axis Bank Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 956/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 852/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Axis Bank Limited, J.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(1), Opp. Samtheshwar Mahadev, Ahmedabad. Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT.D.R
Section 133Section 14ASection 43D

…ipt of interest or bill discount where the borrower himself is using the funds of the bank for future period and hence the receipt is related to the period of such use . The judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd 225 ITR 802 is also not relevant to the facts of the appellant's case as in that case the assesses was making use of the funds for future period and hence the expense was spread over the period of use. In the instant case, it is not the case of any such expenditure of which benefit is received for future years but here the case is of receipt of income on acc…

Axis Bank Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Jt.CIT., Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 852/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 852/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Axis Bank Limited, J.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(1), Opp. Samtheshwar Mahadev, Ahmedabad. Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT.D.R
Section 133Section 14ASection 43D

…ipt of interest or bill discount where the borrower himself is using the funds of the bank for future period and hence the receipt is related to the period of such use . The judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd 225 ITR 802 is also not relevant to the facts of the appellant's case as in that case the assesses was making use of the funds for future period and hence the expense was spread over the period of use. In the instant case, it is not the case of any such expenditure of which benefit is received for future years but here the case is of receipt of income on acc…

Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 78/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(4)

…come, the assessee has claimed the balance amount of Rs.610.17 Lacs also on the ground that it is a revenue expenditure and allowable in full. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corp. Ltd. (225 ITR 802) for the same. However, following assessment order for AY 2005-06, Ld. AO denied the deduction so claimed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) chose to follow appellate order for AY 2005-06 and confirmed the stand of Ld. AO. Aggrieved the assessee is in further appeal before us. 6.2 We find that this issue has been dealt with by Tribunal in ITA Nos.72…

Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 77/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(4)

…come, the assessee has claimed the balance amount of Rs.610.17 Lacs also on the ground that it is a revenue expenditure and allowable in full. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corp. Ltd. (225 ITR 802) for the same. However, following assessment order for AY 2005-06, Ld. AO denied the deduction so claimed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) chose to follow appellate order for AY 2005-06 and confirmed the stand of Ld. AO. Aggrieved the assessee is in further appeal before us. 6.2 We find that this issue has been dealt with by Tribunal in ITA Nos.72…

Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 76/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(4)

…come, the assessee has claimed the balance amount of Rs.610.17 Lacs also on the ground that it is a revenue expenditure and allowable in full. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corp. Ltd. (225 ITR 802) for the same. However, following assessment order for AY 2005-06, Ld. AO denied the deduction so claimed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) chose to follow appellate order for AY 2005-06 and confirmed the stand of Ld. AO. Aggrieved the assessee is in further appeal before us. 6.2 We find that this issue has been dealt with by Tribunal in ITA Nos.72…

Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 75/CHNY/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(4)

…come, the assessee has claimed the balance amount of Rs.610.17 Lacs also on the ground that it is a revenue expenditure and allowable in full. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corp. Ltd. (225 ITR 802) for the same. However, following assessment order for AY 2005-06, Ld. AO denied the deduction so claimed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) chose to follow appellate order for AY 2005-06 and confirmed the stand of Ld. AO. Aggrieved the assessee is in further appeal before us. 6.2 We find that this issue has been dealt with by Tribunal in ITA Nos.72…

Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 74/CHNY/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(4)

…come, the assessee has claimed the balance amount of Rs.610.17 Lacs also on the ground that it is a revenue expenditure and allowable in full. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corp. Ltd. (225 ITR 802) for the same. However, following assessment order for AY 2005-06, Ld. AO denied the deduction so claimed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) chose to follow appellate order for AY 2005-06 and confirmed the stand of Ld. AO. Aggrieved the assessee is in further appeal before us. 6.2 We find that this issue has been dealt with by Tribunal in ITA Nos.72…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 293/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(4)

…come, the assessee has claimed the balance amount of Rs.610.17 Lacs also on the ground that it is a revenue expenditure and allowable in full. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corp. Ltd. (225 ITR 802) for the same. However, following assessment order for AY 2005-06, Ld. AO denied the deduction so claimed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) chose to follow appellate order for AY 2005-06 and confirmed the stand of Ld. AO. Aggrieved the assessee is in further appeal before us. 6.2 We find that this issue has been dealt with by Tribunal in ITA Nos.72…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 292/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(4)

…come, the assessee has claimed the balance amount of Rs.610.17 Lacs also on the ground that it is a revenue expenditure and allowable in full. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corp. Ltd. (225 ITR 802) for the same. However, following assessment order for AY 2005-06, Ld. AO denied the deduction so claimed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) chose to follow appellate order for AY 2005-06 and confirmed the stand of Ld. AO. Aggrieved the assessee is in further appeal before us. 6.2 We find that this issue has been dealt with by Tribunal in ITA Nos.72…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 291/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(4)

…come, the assessee has claimed the balance amount of Rs.610.17 Lacs also on the ground that it is a revenue expenditure and allowable in full. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corp. Ltd. (225 ITR 802) for the same. However, following assessment order for AY 2005-06, Ld. AO denied the deduction so claimed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) chose to follow appellate order for AY 2005-06 and confirmed the stand of Ld. AO. Aggrieved the assessee is in further appeal before us. 6.2 We find that this issue has been dealt with by Tribunal in ITA Nos.72…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/CHNY/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(4)

…come, the assessee has claimed the balance amount of Rs.610.17 Lacs also on the ground that it is a revenue expenditure and allowable in full. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corp. Ltd. (225 ITR 802) for the same. However, following assessment order for AY 2005-06, Ld. AO denied the deduction so claimed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) chose to follow appellate order for AY 2005-06 and confirmed the stand of Ld. AO. Aggrieved the assessee is in further appeal before us. 6.2 We find that this issue has been dealt with by Tribunal in ITA Nos.72…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 289/CHNY/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(4)

…come, the assessee has claimed the balance amount of Rs.610.17 Lacs also on the ground that it is a revenue expenditure and allowable in full. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corp. Ltd. (225 ITR 802) for the same. However, following assessment order for AY 2005-06, Ld. AO denied the deduction so claimed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) chose to follow appellate order for AY 2005-06 and confirmed the stand of Ld. AO. Aggrieved the assessee is in further appeal before us. 6.2 We find that this issue has been dealt with by Tribunal in ITA Nos.72…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 288/CHNY/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(4)

…come, the assessee has claimed the balance amount of Rs.610.17 Lacs also on the ground that it is a revenue expenditure and allowable in full. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corp. Ltd. (225 ITR 802) for the same. However, following assessment order for AY 2005-06, Ld. AO denied the deduction so claimed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) chose to follow appellate order for AY 2005-06 and confirmed the stand of Ld. AO. Aggrieved the assessee is in further appeal before us. 6.2 We find that this issue has been dealt with by Tribunal in ITA Nos.72…