IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3762/MUM/2009 (Assessment Year: 2006-2007)

Grasim Industries Limited, (Corporate Finance Division), A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400030. Maharashtra [PAN: AAACG4464B] …………. Appellant Additional Commissioner of Income Vs Tax, Range 6(3), 5^th Floor, Room No.505, Aayakar Bhavan, …………. Respondent Mumbai – 400020.

ITA No.4385/MUM/2009 (Assessment Year: 2006-2007)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3), Mumbai, Room No. 522, 5^th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 …………. Appellant Grasim Industries Limited, Century Bhavan, 3^rd Floor, Dr. A.B.Road, Vs Worli, Mumbai – 400025.

[PAN: AAACG4464B] …………. Respondent Appearance For the Assessee : Shri J. D. Mistry Sr. Advocate Shri Fenil Bhatt For the Department : Shri Kishor Dhule Date Conclusion of hearing : 28.11.2024 Pronouncement of order : 25.02.2025

O R D E R

Per Rahul Chaudhary:

1. These are cross-appeals for Assessment Year 2006-2007 preferred against the order, dated 18/05/2009, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Mumbai, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated

26/12/2008, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that assessee, a domestic company in which public was substantially interested, was engaged in different manufacturing and trading activities at the relevant time. For Assessment Year 2006-07, the Assessee filed return of income on 27/11/2006 declaring total income of INR.10,62,16,40,458/-. The Assessee filed as revised return on 20/03/2008 declaring total income of INR 10,60,25,15,698/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for regular scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued the Assessee on 15/10/2007. The Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide Assessment Order, dated 26/12/2008, assessing the total income of the Assessee at INR.11,06,04,76,832/- after making certain additions and disallowances.

3. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A).

The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009.

4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the ld. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the ld.

CIT(A).

Appeal by Assessee: ITA No.3762/MUM/2009

5. We would first take up appeal preferred by the Assessee. The Assessee had raised 6 Grounds of appeal and 3 Additional Grounds of appeal which require adjudication and are taken up hereinafter in seriatim.

6. Ground No. 1.

“1. Disallowance under Section 43B “1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not allowing the amounts paid or written back during the previous year amounting to Rs.1,19,11,368/- , which had already been disallowed in the past under clauses (b) to (e) of section 43B, consistent with the Department's stand.

1.2. The CIT (A) ought to have held that in the event the Department's stand is accepted by the ITAT in earlier years, then deduction of amounts paid or written back during the year amounting to Rs. 1,19,11,368/- should be allowed in the previous year.”

6.1. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Assessee submitted that since the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in the preceding assessment years under Clauses (b) to (e) of Section 43B of the Act has been allowed, Ground No. 1 raised by the Assessee has been rendered infructuous. In view of the aforesaid submission, Ground No. 1 to 1.2 raised by the Assessee is dismissed as infructuous.

7. Ground No. 2 “2. Depreciation on let out property

2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and i