9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be levied on an assessee on the ground that other person would have paid to bank higher rate of interest. By saving of income by a third party, the assessee, in our opinion, cannot be liable to pay tax. In this view of the matter and in view of acceptance of the order of the CIT(A) by the revenue on this issue in the preceding year, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is upheld - the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose. - ITA Nos. 1696 and 1601/Mum/2006 - - - Dated:- 18-10-2010 - D. Manmohan, R.K. Panda, JJ. Prakash Jotwani for the Appellant R.S. Srivastava for the Respondent ORDER R.K. Panda: The above two appeals filed by the revenue are directed against the separat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... towards office and AV equipments. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain as to why the expenditure should not be capitalised. It was submitted by the assessee that there is a need to keep the company's assets in good working condition especially for an advertising agency such as Lintas, which needs to project a professional image to its clients. It was submitted that an advertising agency needs to be able to prove to its clients that it can market their products most efficiently. If the agency does not operate from professional office premises, then it will have a very negative impact on any client or suppliers visiting the office. 2.2 Not being satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee the Assessing Officer dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ature and the assessee is entitle only for depreciation. 3.1 The software expenditure of Rs.17,62,000/- was held by him as revenue expenditure in view of the decision for Assessment Year 1997-98. 3.2 So far as the treatment of Rs.4,65,875/- paid to Prasad Engineers for maintenance of office premises, he held the same to be revenue in nature in view of his order for the preceding assessment year. Following his order for Assessment Year 1997-98, he also held that the expenditure of Rs.1,03,57,126/- incurred on repairs of leased office premises; Rs.10,09,287/- incurred for repairs of office premises taken on lease and Rs.6,15,227/- incurred by the assessee on account of repairs of flats owned and used by the assessee as revenue in natu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tio on this issue, the ground raised by the revenue for the year under consideration is also dismissed. 9. Grounds of appeal no.3 by the revenue reads as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the interest of Rs.5,96,055/- charged u/s 234C" 10. After hearing both the sides, we find the CIT(A) deleted the interest charged u/s 234C on the ground that the assessment order does not contain any direction for charging of such interest. While doing so, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rachni Club Ltd reported in 247 ITR 209. However, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Anjum M H Ghaswala and others repo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18% interest to the bank. Thus, the Assessing Officer held that the notional interest foregone by the assessee company by placing short term deposits with the above mentioned companies should be added to the total income of the assessee company. He, accordingly made the addition of Rs.3,17,090/-. 11.2 In appeal, the CIT(A) following his order for Assessment Year 1997-98 deleted the addition. 11.3 Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal here before us. 13. After hearing both the sides, we find similar addition has been made by the Assessing Officer in the preceding assessment year amounting to Rs.1,14,040/-. Although the CIT(A) has deleted the addition, the revenue has not preferred any appeal before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd renovations has been held to be revenue in nature. Following the same ratio, this ground raised by the revenue is also allowed for statistical purpose. 17. Grounds of appeal no.2 reads as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the interest of Rs.3,12,478/-charged u/s 234C of the I T Act." 18. After hearing both the sides, we find this issue is identical to grounds of appeal no.3 in ITA No.1696/Mum/2006 for Assessment Year 1998-99. We have already decided the issue and the ground raised by the revenue has been allowed. Following the same ratio, this ground raised by the revenue for the year under consideration is also allowed. 19. In the result, both the appeals f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
