Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs Addl Cit Rg 6(2), Mumbai on 15 May, 2019 आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण "K" न्यायपीठ मब ुं ई में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K" BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007 08) DCIT Ci rcle 6(2) बिाम/ M/s. Kansai Nerolac R.No. 563, Aay akar Bhavan, Paints Ltd., M.K. Ro ad, Church gate, v. Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai400020 Mumbai400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं ./ PAN :AAACG1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7196/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007 08) M/s. Kansai Nerolac Paints बिाम/ Addl. CIT Circle 6( 2) Ltd., R.No. 669, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, v. Lower Parel, Mumbai 40001 3 M.K. Ro ad, Mumbai 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं ./ PAN : AAACG1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri. Rignesh K. Das (DR) Shri. Rajeev Gubgotra (DR) Assessee by : Ms. Aarti Vissanji सन ु वाई की तारीख /Date of Hearin g : 15022019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 15 052019 आदे श / ORDER PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member These cross appeals, filed by Revenue as well as by Assessee, being ITA No. 6789/Mum/2013 & ITA no. 7196/Mum/2013 respectively both for assessment year 200708 are directed against the appellate order dated 24.09.2013 in appeal no. CIT(A)15/Arr.109/1314 passed by learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals)15, Mumbai (hereinafter called "the I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2013 I.T.A. No.7196/Mum/2013 CIT(A)"), the appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from the assessment order dated 18.02.2011 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called "the AO") u/s 143(3) read with Section 144C(3) of the Incometax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act"). 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in the memo of appeal filed with the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter called "the tribunal") in ITA no. 6789/Mum/2013 for AY 200708, read as under: 1. "Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.8,91,860/ incurred by the assesses on kavesar Unit for expenses pertaining to kavesar Unit without appreciating the fact that assessee has discontinued its pigment operation at kavesar from 1.4.1999 and this expenditure cannot be treated as expenditure incurred wholly and solely for the purposes of business of the assessee?. 2. "Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.77,948/ being depreciation in respect of assets of kavesar factory without appreciating the fact that assessee has discontinued its pigment operation at kavesar from 1.4.1999 and the assets in question were never put to use?. 3. "The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary". 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the memo of appeal filed with the tribunal in ITA no. 7196/Mum/2013 for AY 200708, read as under: 1. a. The learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) erred in granting only partial relief and upholding action of the Assessing Officer of not giving deduction for insurance expenses of Rs. 41,696/ in relation to the discontinued pigment operations of the appellant at Kavesar (Thane). 2. The learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) erred in upholding action of the Assessing Officer of disallowance Rs.8,65,032/ on account of expenditure on purchase of application software. 3. a. The learned Commissioner of Incomet