9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 737X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce No.139/Alld) of 1989 for the assessment year 1983-84:- "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that the expenses aggregating Rs.4,53,258/- were not admissible. (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the administrative expenses amounting to Rs.4,53,258/- were not revenue but capital in nature. (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal exercised its discretion judiciously in upholding and confirming the disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs.4,53,258/-." For the assessment year 1984-85 the Tribunal has referred the following questions in Reference No.140(All ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts upto 31st march, 1983. Out of this expenditure, an amount of Rs.4,33,412/- was claimed as administrative expenditure of revenue nature, as per the revised return filed on 31st December, 1984. For the assessment year 1984-85 for the same amount of Rs.41,13,562/- shown as capital expenditure administrative expenses of Rs.6,23,262/- were claimed to be of revenue nature. The A.O. did not accept the assessee's contention for allowance of the administrative expenses as revenue expenditure. He noted that no day to day account has been maintained to specify the hours of work done by the engineers and other members of the staff at the project under construction, as also the hours of work done in the office for general purpose of non-capital natu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this, it is undisputed that works on which this expenditure had been incurred were in progress and had not been completed. That apart, the basis for bifurcation of the expenses, as claimed by the assessee, has no rationale. For all these reasons, we see no reasons to take a view different from that of the authorities below. The assessee also fails to derive any assistance from the decisions cited on its behalf." Shri V.K. Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that in the balance sheet clearly demonstrated that capital work was in progress including cost of land at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow; Soraonpati, Allahabad; Mehmoodabad, Sitapur; Kolahar, Mathura and Padia, Basti for which unapportioned expenses of Rs.8,32,968/- wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect, is finding of fact and that the assessee is not entitled for allowing such expenses as revenue expenses. In India Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras, 1966 (LX) ITR 52 the Supreme Court held that the amount spent was not in the nature of capital expenditure and was laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business and was therefore allowable as a deduction under section 10 (2) (xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. In CIT, Bombay North v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co., 1960 (XXXVIII) ITR 601 the Supreme Court held that commission under agreement, waiver of a portion of commission on the ground of unsatisfactory position of managed company is wholly allowable as business expenditure. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
