Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
Popular Search: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: cpt :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: empanelment :: VAT Audit :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: due date for vat payment :: VAT RATES :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: form 3cd :: TDS :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: articles on VAT and GST in India
From the Courts »
 Group M. Media India Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)
 Shreemati Devi vs. CIT (Allahabad High Court)
 Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 DCIT vs. Shivshankar R. Sharma (ITAT Mumbai)
 ACIT vs. Jawaharlal Agicha (ITAT Mumbai)
 CIT vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co (Bombay High Court)
 Makes further amendments to Notification no. 157/90-Customs dated 28th March, 1990 regarding temporary admission under the ATA Carnet
 Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority by DGRI - 2/2016-Customs

ACIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi. Vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd., Suite No.304, 3rd Floor, DLF South Court, New Delhi.
October, 07th 2015

                       ITA No.4509/Del/2014
                      Assessment Year : 2010-11

ACIT,                              Vs.   Holcim India Pvt. Ltd.,
Circle-12(1),                            Suite No.304, 3rd Floor,
New Delhi.                               DLF South Court,
                                         New Delhi.
                                         PAN: AABCH3635C

      (Appellant)                           (Respondent)

           Appellant by : Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA
           Respondent by: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR

           Date of Hearing      : 01.10.2015
           Date of Pronouncement: 06.10.2015


      This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by

the CIT(A) on 30.5.2014 in relation to the Assessment Year 2010-11.

2.    The only issue raised in this appeal is against the deletion of

addition of Rs.1,55,71,643/-
                                                           ITA No.4509/Del/2014   2

3.   Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee declared

revenue receipts of Rs.8,74,667/-. As against that, the assessee claimed

deduction for expenses amounting to Rs.1,55,71,643/-. The AO opined

that the business of the assessee was not set up and, hence, no deduction

could be allowed. He, therefore, made disallowance of Rs.1.55 Crore.

The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. The Revenue is aggrieved against

the deletion of the addition.

4.   I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant

material on record. It is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the

addition by relying on the Tribunal order passed in the assessee's own

case for earlier years deciding the issue in the assessee's favour. The ld.

AR invited my attention towards a copy of the judgment rendered by the

Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case for the AYs 2007-

08 and 2008-09 in which a categorical finding has been recorded that

the business was set up and had commenced. It has further been noticed

by the Hon'ble High Court that the assessee was required to incur

expenses for the business in the form of investment in shares of cement

companies. That is how the deduction was allowed. In view of the fact

that the Hon'ble High Court has, in identical circumstances, for
                                                          ITA No.4509/Del/2014   3

assessment years 2007-08 and 200-09,          allowed deduction for such

expenses, respectfully following the precedent, I also order for the

deduction of expenses because no distinguishing facts for the year under

consideration vis-à-vis those considered and examined by the Hon'ble

High Court, have been brought to my notice by the ld. DR. I, therefore,

uphold the impugned order.

5.    In the result, the appeal filed is dismissed.

      The decision was pronounced in the open court on 06th October,


                                                   (R.S. SYAL)
                                             ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated:06th October, 2015.


Copy forwarded to

1.   Appellant
2.   Respondent
3.   CIT
4.   CIT(A)
5.   DR
                                          Dy. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Article Management Solutions System Article Management Software S

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions