The assessee, a partnership firm, was carrying on warehousing business and also engaged in the manufacturing of wooden articles for the use of textile industry. The income derived from these two activities were offered as business income. The assessee, a tenant of Bombay Port Trust (BPT), was liable to pay rentals in respect of premises taken on lease from BPT. BPT increased the rentals and which was subject matter of litigation. However, assessee in the past, has provided for the incremental rentals payable to BPT and claimed the same as deductions in the returns filed for the AY 1990-91, 91-92 & 92-93. The same was disallowed by the AO. Thereafter, the rentals were ultimately fixed by the Hon’ble Apex court. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that assessee is entitled to deduction only to the extent of rent ultimately fixed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. During AY 2012–13, the assessee wrote back the liabilities representing incremental rentals payable to BPT in the sum of Rs.17,11,818/- and credited same to its profit & loss account. However while filing return of income Assessee reduced this sum of Rs.17,11,818/- on the ground that for the earlier years, the incremental rentals were not allowed as deduction. The AO ignored the order passed by his predecessor pursuant to High Court order and added a sum of Rs.17,11,818/- of section 41(1) of the Act on the ground that Tribunal had granted relief to the assessee & hence assessee cannot be given double benefit. The action of the AO was upheld by the CIT (A). Aggrieved by the same, assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that provision of section 41 (1) of the Act could be invoked only if deduction of the very same sum has been allowed in earlier years for the assessee, which in the fact of the instant case, was not granted in the earlier order of Ld. AO. Hence, there is no double benefit claimed by the assessee and hence addition made u/s 41(1) was deleted. (ITA No. 380/Mum/2017 & ITA No.7556/Mum/2016, dt.19.12.2018, (AY. 2012-13)