9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ultancy charges on the ground that the assessee is not liable to make any payment to International Caterers Pvt.Ltd. because they have not provided any services - Jurisdictional High Court agreed with International Caterers Pvt.Ltd. and held that they provided the services to the assessee and the assessee is liable to make the payment of consultancy charges to them - the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court is binding upon the assessee as well as the revenue authorities for computing the assessee's liability in respect of consultancy charges – the CIT(A) rightly allowed the deduction of consultancy charges – the matter remitted back to the AO to allow the deduction of consultancy charges – Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA No.2606/Del/2011, ITA No.2277/Del/2011 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2013 - Shri G. D. Agrawal And Shri Chandra Mohan Garg,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri S. D. Kapila, Shri Pravesh Sharma, Advocates and Shri Shailender Bajaj, CA. For the respondent : Smt. Leena Srivastava, Sr. DR. ORDER Per G. D. Agrawal,VP. The appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-IX, New Delhi dated 14th January, 2011 for the AY 2003-04. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit of the expenditure during the entire period of lease which was 9 years and 9 months, therefore, the above expenditure was treated as deferred revenue expenditure and 10% thereof was claimed as deduction year after year. Assessment year 2001-02 was the first year in which such deduction was claimed and it was allowed by the Revenue. Again in AY 2001-02, the expenditure was allowed by the Assessing Officer. That in AY 2002-03, the expenditure was disallowed which was sustained by the ITAT. In AY 2003-04, again the expenditure is disallowed and the matter is before the ITAT, i.e., the present appeal. Thereafter, in all the subsequent years, the Revenue has allowed the expenditure. Thus, out of the ten years, except in AY 2002-03 2003-04, in all the years, the expenditure is allowed by the Revenue itself. That in the case of Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held as under:- "23. Thus, the first thing which is to be noticed is that though the entire expenditure was incurred in that year, it was the assessee who wanted the spread over. The Court was conscious of the principle that normally revenue expenditure is to be allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. Normally, for allowability of deferred revenue expenditure, there cannot be different decision in every year. The Revenue should either accept the assessee's claim of deferred revenue expenditure and accordingly allow the spread-over of deduction in number of years or reject the assessee's claim and allow the deduction for expenditure in the year in which expenditure was incurred. However, this is a peculiar case where the Revenue itself has taken a different stand in various years. In AY 2000-01 and 2001-02, the Revenue accepted the assessee's claim of allowability of 1/10th of renovation expenses. The order for AY 2001-02 is passed under Section 143(3). However, in the subsequent year in AY 2002-03 2003-04, the Revenue took a different stand and disallowed the expenditure. Again in the subsequent year, the expenditure is not disallowed. The ITAT has upheld the disallowance of 1/10th of renovation expenses in AY 2002-03. However, the decision of ITAT is dated 11th April, 2008 while the decision of H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 15,95,225/-. The Revenue is aggrieved with the relief allowed while the assessee now by way of an additional ground has challenged the disallowance sustained. 15. At the time of hearing before us, it was stated by the learned counsel that the omission of not taking of the ground in the regular memorandum of appeal was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the assessee's counsel who prepared the original memorandum of appeal. When the assessee has filed appeal against the order of CIT(A) and has raised the ground in respect of all the disallowances/additions sustained by the CIT(A), there was no reason for not taking such a ground. He, therefore, submitted that the additional ground should be admitted. 16. Learned DR, on the other hand, opposed the admission of the additional ground. 17. After considering the arguments of both the sides and the facts of the case, we deem it proper to admit the additional ground. Accordingly, the same is admitted. 18. With regard to the merit of the disallowance of consultancy charges, it was stated by the learned DR that the CIT(A) allowed the relief to the assessee on the basis of the decision of H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
