Navi Mumbai Sez P. Ltd, Mumbai vs Assessee
- CitationITA NO 2064/Mum/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as infructuous because, for the earlier assessment year 2008-09, the Tribunal had already held the entire expenditure of Rs. 3,50,00,858 allowable as revenue expenditure, so that the claim for deduction under section 35D in respect of one-fifth of that same sum could no longer survive.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Assessee By Shri Ramesh Jain Revenue By Dr. Yogesh Kamat Date of hearing 10.06.2015 Date of pronouncement 30.06.2015
ORDER
Per G.S. Pannu, AM
This appeal has been filed by the assessee, against order dated 28.12.2012 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-13, Mumbai, which in-turn has arisen from assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 25.03.2011 passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2009-10 on the following ground:-
"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appellants' contention that the disallowance of Rs.70,00,172/- under section 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law.
2 ITA NO 2064/Mum/2013 Assessment year: - 2009-10
2. At the outset, learned counsel submitted that the present appeal has become infructuous in view of the order of the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2008- 09, in ITA No.4931/Mum/2013 order dated 22.12.2014, wherein the expenses amounting to Rs.3,50,00,858/- has been held to be allowable as revenue expenses and therefore, the claim of u/s 35D does not survive.
3. After considering the facts of the case, we find that the assessee had debited sum of Rs.3,50,00,858/- under the head "miscellaneous expenditure" in the P& L Account in the A.Y. 2008-09, which was added back in the computation of income at 1/5th of the same, being Rs.70,00,172/- which was claimed as deduction u./s 35D of the Act. Similar claim of 1/5th has been made in this year also. Since the Tribunal has already allowed the entire expenses in the A.Y. 2008-09 therefore, this claim of deduction u/s 35D has become infructuous. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this day of June 2015.
(Sanjay Garg) (G.S. Pannu) (Judicial Member/U;kf;d lnL;) (Accountant Member/ys[kk lnL;) Mumbai dated -06-2015 SKS Sr. P.S,
Page 2 of 3 3 ITA NO 2064/Mum/2013 Assessment year: - 2009-10
Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The concerned CIT(A) The concerned CIT The DR, "B" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai By Order
Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Benches, MUMBAI
Page 3 of 3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free