9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hence we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue and admit the appeal of the Revenue for hearing. 3. The sole issue raised by the Revenue in this appeal is that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs.42,96,000/- including work in progress shown under the caption ":Land procurement and registration" 4. The brief facts of the case are that the AO observed that the assessee claimed an amount of Rs.64,40,671/- towards land procurement and registration expenditure as per profit and loss account filed. The AO further observed that the said amount was included in the work in progress of the company. The AO further observed that the assessee has produced only IGR copies as proof of registration in respect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O., the action of the AO for addition is not correct. Thus, the appellant gets relief on this issue." 5. The ld. DR argued and supported the order of the AO. 6. On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assesee submitted that the entire expenditure debited in the profit and loss account was shown as work-in-progress by the assessee in the profit and loss account and hence no expenditure in fact was actually claimed by the assessee and therefore no disallowance of expenditure made by the AO could have been made in the hands of the assessee. 7. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the orders of the lower authorities and materials available on record, we find that the undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee had shown a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the revenue is dismissed 8. In the Cross Objection the assessee has raised the ground that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.50,000/- under the head software development, Rs.32,843/- under the head financial consultancy charges and Rs.90,000/- under the head Director's remuneration by invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act. 9. The brief facts of the case are that the AO disallowed Rs.50,000/- on account of software development, Rs.32,843/- on account of financial consultancy charges and Rs.90,000/- on account of directors remuneration. The disallowance was made by the AO on account of software development expenses on the ground that the same should have been capitalized as fixed asset. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loss account for the period from 14.06.2006 to 31.03.2007 as filed that the entire expenditure of Rs.1,01,06,389 during the year has been shown as closing work in progress at Rs.1,01,04,668/-. Thus it is seen that no expenditure has been claimed as deduction in the profit and loss account by the assessee. Hence the question of making any disallowance of any expenditure for non deduction of tax at source by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act does not arise. Hence we set aside the orders of the ld.CIT(A) and allow the grounds of Cross Objection of the assessee.
13. In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assesee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the court on 18.06.2013. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
