ITO., Ward-4(4), Hyderabad V. M/s Unique Enterprises, Hyderabad

MA 131/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2315 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICAL MEMBER M.A.NO.131/HYD/2014 ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO.289/HYD/2013 - ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), HYDERABAD. VS. M/S. UNIQUE ENTERPRISES HYDERABAD. PAN AAAFU-9170-H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : MR. R. MOHAN REDDY FOR ASSESSEE : -NONE- DATE OF HEARING : 05.09.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.09.2014 ORDER PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY REVENU E AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN ITA.NO.289/HYD/201 3 DATED 07.03.2014. 2. REVENUE HAS PRAYED IN THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATION TO INCLUDE THE WORD DISALLOWANCE OF IN PARA 8.6 B EFORE THE WORD THE CLAIM OF DEALERS MEET IN ITS ENTIRETY. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED D.R. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATION FILED BY REVENUE IS INFRUCTUOUS. VARIOUS EXPENDITURE HAVE BE EN CONSIDERED IN THE ORDER AND SEPARATE DIRECTIONS WERE GIVEN PAR TICULARLY, IN PARA 8.2 IN PAGE-11 DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT DISALLOWAN CE OF VARIOUS EXPENDITURE OTHER THAN 'INTEREST AND EXPENDITURE ON DEALERS MEET 2 MA.NO.131/HYD/2014 IN ITA.NO.289/HYD/2013 M/S. UNIQUE ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD. WAS DISCUSSED AND 30% OF OTHER EXPENDITURE WAS DIRE CTED TO BE DISALLOWED. IN PARA 8.3 CLAIM OF INTEREST WAS EXA MINED AND DIRECTED THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO DISALLOW ANY INTE REST EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. VIDE PARAS 8.4 AND 8.5 THE EXPENDITURE ON DEALERS MEET WAS DISCUSSED AND IN THE CONCLUSION THE ENTIRE AMOU NT OF RS.4,17,069 CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO BE DISALLOWED. SINCE SEPARATE DIRECTIONS WERE GIVEN IN EACH PARA, WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHY REVENUE HAS COME IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WHEN THE ENTIRE ORDER WAS SUMMARIZED IN PARA 8.6 WHICH IS ALSO CLEAR. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT MIS CELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS INFRUCTUOUS AND ORDER DOES NOT REQUI RE ANY CLARIFICATION. 4. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF REV ENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.09.2014. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (B.RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 VBP/- COPY TO 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), AAYAKAR BHAVA N, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD. 2. M/S. UNIQUE ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD. C/O. M/S. MAHAVEER ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.253/A , WELKIN HOUSE, VENKATESWARA COLONY, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD 4. CIT-IV, HYDERABAD 5. D.R. ITAT, A BENCH, HYDERABAD.