9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gement, contract management, auction (reverse and forward), emarket place, sourcing services, consulting and supplier analytics etc. and the offer tailor made products and services based on the best practices specific to industry domain and the few screenshots from the company’s website showing the products and services offered, awards and achievements. We observe the correctness in the contention of the assessee’s counsel that these details are very much available on the internet which can be accessed by anybody. In view of the above, we find that assessee’s counsel has rightly submitted that facts indicate the extent of business activities of C-1 India which is beyond doubt. Decision of the AO as well Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in disal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-I, New Delhi has erred in confirming the disallowance of ₹ 21,00,000/- paid to C-1 India Pvt. Ltd. by treating the expenses as not being for the purpose of the business of the appellant. 3. The appellant craves leave to alter, amend or add any other ground of appeal either before or during the course of hearing. 3. Briefly facts of the case are that a Search and Seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out in Suresh Nanda Group of cases on 28.2.2007. The case of the assessee was centralized by Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-IV, New Delhi vide order dated 31.12.2007 u/s. 127(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Notice u/s. 153A was issued and served on the assessee on 18. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 21,00,000/- was disallowed by the Assessing Officer as not being for the purpose of business of the assessee and he completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide his order dated NIL. 4. Against the above order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, Assessee appealed before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who vide impugned Order dated 11.12.2012 has upheld the addition of ₹ 21,00,000/- by dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Against the above order dated 11.12.2012 of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee appealed before us. 6. Ld. Counsel of the assessee filed the Paper Book dated NIL containing pages 1 to 44 having the copies of the records of the assesssee wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that he is not pressing the additional grounds. Ld. DR have not raised any objection on the statement of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee. Keeping in view of the statement of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee, we dismiss the additional grounds of assessee being not pressed. As regards the disallowance of ₹ 21,00,000/-, we find that AO while making this disallowance has held that there was inconsistency in the stand of the assessee with regard to the purpose of the payment, the assessee as well as the payee company are controlled by Sh. Suresh Nanda, and that the payment appears to have been made to offset the losses in the payee company and in the appeal we find that Ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the issue and held as under:- I hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee was setting up of a system to be used by the management to be able to take certain critical decision and maximise the utilisation of manpower and the profitability thereof. We find valid reasons in the contentions of the assessee s counsel that the Management Information System is a very wide term that encompasses various benefits for the management. We find it provides information that organizations require to manage themselves efficiently and effectively and to improve efficiency and effectiveness of decision making. We find force in the contention of the assessee s counsel that that the Memorandum of Understanding furnished before the AO lays down the scope of work to be done by C-1 India Pvt. Ltd. for Dynatron Exports Pvt. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowing the payment of ₹ 21,00,000/- by holding that the expenditure made by the assessee was not for the business purpose. We also observe that Revenue Authorities have wrongly held that there were inconsistency in the stand of the assessee for the nature of payment to C-1 India Pvt. Ltd. as well as that assessee company is controlled by Sh. Suresh Nanda for the purpose of payment and the payment appeared to have been made of set off the losses in the public company. We find that expenditure incurred by the assessee qualify as deduction u/s. 37(1) of the I.T. Act and the assessee fully established that the expenditure in dispute has been made wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. IN view of the above, we find that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
