Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 354 - ITAT DELHIRepairs and maintenance expenditure incurred on leasehold property disallowed - Held that:- Finding of the CIT(A) cannot be faulted with as being satisfied with the reasoning and the finding qua the issue agitated in the Revenue’s appeal, no good reason in the absence of any specific argument on facts on behalf of the department to interfere with the finding arrived at. The expenses for maintenance and upkeep of leased premises and make them useable as assessee’s office premises and similarly the leased premises for assessee’s expatriate employees as rent-free accommodation perquisite value of which has admittedly been offered for tax, similarly expenses for pest control, AMC for electrical fittings are correctly considered Revenue expenditure in the peculiar facts of the case. No fault in referring to vouchers and documentation has been pointed out by the department. Accordingly the same is dismissed. Considering the assessee’s ground, it is seen as per the narrations given by the assessee some of the expenses of repair, maintenance etc. appear to be Revenue in nature however the specific vouchers relatable the expenses need to be considered, AR contended that the Tribunal could itself decide the issue after considering the bills and vouchers. Thus agreeing with the said prayer of the assessee restore the issue to the AO for verification. Advances and deposits written off - Disallowance considering the same to be not laid or expended for the purpose of business - Held that:- The arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee namely that making of samples is expensive business and the assessee has entered into an arrangement that incase the sample keeping the brand image of the assessee is not as per mark the same does not receive any further orders and the amount advanced is forfeited and the party entrusted for providing the sample can utilize it as the cost incurred for creating the sample. The possibility and the feasibility of the argument of entering into such an arrangement cannot be faulted with as it appears to be a prudent arrangement. However documentation qua the said arrangement has not been addressed. The relevance of discussing case law will arise only after facts are addressed. Arguments dehors facts cannot be accepted. Ld. AR in the course of the arguments was required to demonstrate and support his arguments which he was not able to. Accordingly, it is considered appropriate that the issue should be is restored to the AO for consideration de-novo.
|