9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 2097 - AT - Income TaxDisallowing the cost of planting and maintenance of immature rubber plants - HELD THAT - Admittedly in this case the expenditure incurred is not for infilling in yielding area. The expenditure has been incurred for maintenance of immature rubber plants in replanted areas and such expenditure could not be allowed as deduction going by the dictum laid down by the Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of Rehabilitation Plantations Ltd. 2012 (6) TMI 570 - KERALA HIGH COURT . In view of the judgment of the Hon ble Kerala High Court (supra) we hold that the order of the CIT(A) is correct and in accordance with law and no interference is called for. Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Issues:
Disallowance of cost of planting and maintenance of immature rubber plants. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s order disallowing the cost of planting and maintenance of immature rubber plants for the assessment year 2011-2012. The assessee, a company engaged in rubber plantation, had claimed a deduction for this expenditure in the return of income. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, leading to an appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in a similar case. Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal noted that the expenditure in question was for the maintenance of immature rubber plants in replanted areas, not for infilling in yielding areas. The Tribunal referenced the judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in a related case and concluded that the expenditure could not be allowed as a deduction. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that no interference was warranted based on the legal precedent. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Tribunal, upholding the decision of the CIT(A) to disallow the cost of planting and maintenance of immature rubber plants. The judgment was delivered on September 6, 2018, by the Tribunal consisting of Shri Chandra Poojari, AM, and Shri George George K, JM.
|
