Full Text
'l., #r, #2 & #3 olo L3.1O.2O11
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate for the Appellant.
Ms. Madhavi Swaroop, Advocate for the Respondents.
+ITA Nos. 1 145-1147l2O11
*
All these appeals are against the same assessee and pertain to different periods. Out of these, in two appeals, two issues have been raised and in one appeal only one of these issues arises, which are as under: -
"In ITA No. 1 L45/2OLt
JUDGMENT
1. Whether learned ITAT erred in deleting the addition of account of disallowing the loss on sale of repossessed assets?
2. Whether learned ITAT erred in deleting the addition of { 3,t[5],24,257/- made by Assessing officer on account of disallowing 50% of expenses incurred on advertisement and business promotions expenses. In ITA No. 1L46/2OLI
1. Whether learned ITAT erred in deleting the addition of { 5,00,59,438/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowing the loss on sale of repossessed assets?
2. Whether learned ITAT erred in deleting the addition of 7 2,t[9],44,530/- made by Assessing officer on account of disallowing 5Oo/o of expenses incurred on advertisement and business promotions expenses. _rD\ 2011:DHC:12008 In ITA No. 1L4*/2OLL
1. Whether learned ITAT of t 1,95,89,4655/ - made account of disallowing the assets?" erred in deleting the addition by the Assessing Officer on loss on sale of repossessed t In so far as the first issue is concerned it had brisen in ITA NO. 583/2011. The said appeal was dismissed on 23'd May,2OLl following the judgment dated gth November, 2010 in ITA No. 77L2/2OLO & I7L4/2O10 in the case titled as CIT vs. Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. In so far as the second Issue is concerned that has also been decided against the Revenue in ITA No. 966/2009 in the case entitled as CIT v. Agro Beverages vide order dated 19th November, 2}1-t. Following those orders, thesei appeals are dismissed as no question of law arises. Ld*,[1] SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. ocToBER 13, 2011 'raj' I G CHIEF JUSTICE