Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
21.
PR. COMMISSIONER OFI.TAX- DELHI-2 Appellant
Through; Mr. P. Roy Chaudhuri, Senior Standing
Counsel.
Through: Mr. Mayank Nagi and Ms. Husnal Syali, Advocates.
27.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF I.TAX-DELHI-2 Appellant
Through: Mr. P. Roy Chaudhuri, Senior Standing
Counsel.
Through: Mr. Mayank Nagi and Ms. Husnal Syali, Advocates.
01.08.2016 CM No. 27278/2016 (for exemption) in ITA No. 480/2016
CM No. 27287/2016 (for exemption) in ITA No. 486/2016
ORDER
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. ITA No. 480/2016 & ITA No. 486/2016 ITA Nos. 480/2016 & 486/2016 Page 1 of[2] 2016:DHC:8505-DB
2. These two appeals are directed against the common order dated 22"'' January 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (TTAT') in ITA NO. 3718/Del/2006 and ITA No. 3440/Del/2006 for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2003-04.
3. There are two questions sought to be urged by the Revenue. The first is whether the ITAT erred in deleting the addition made to the book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') on account of deferred ^ rgovernment grant despite agreeing with the Revenue that it was a revenue receipt. It is not in dispute that this question stands answered against the Revenue and in favour ofthe Assessee by the decision ofthe Supreme Court in the case ofApollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 255ITR 273 (SC).
4. The other question that is sought to be urged concerns the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer ('AO') on account of disallowance of bond issuance expenses. The ITAT has in this regard concurred with the CIT (A) that it is arevenue expense. The Court is not persuaded to frame aquestion oflaw on this issue on which there are concurrent findings by the CIT (A) and ( the ITAT. -
5. Theseappeals are accordingly dismissed.
S. MURALroHAR, J
NAJIVH WAZIRI, J AUGUST 01, 2016 dn