9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these expenses on the basis of the terms and conditions of the contract as well as estimated toll receipts for the period of the contract. When the assessee has shown revenue receipts accordingly the expenditure is to be allowed on matching principle of accountancy. After respectfully following the co-ordinate Bench decision in the assessee's own case the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) were justified in both years. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 337/JP/2012, I.T.A. No. 836/JP/2011 - - - Dated:- 13-6-2014 - SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Subhash Chandra For the Respondent : Shri P.C. Parwal ORDER T. R. Meena (Accountant Member).- T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 35D of the Act. He reproduced section 35D of the Act in both the assessment years. The learned Assessing Officer held that amortisation of expenditure was not covered under sub-section (2) of section 35D of the Act. The assessee-company was claiming this privilege on the expenditure spent on construction of roads, bridges etc and nature of these expenditure are not specified under the provisions of section 35D of the Act. As per section, only certain preliminary expenses, which are incurred before commencing of any project and are incidental to the commencement of the business can be amortised within the meaning of section 35D of the Act, which is not the case of the assessee. Thus, he gave the reasonable opportunity of being heard in both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iminary expense, incurred towards Pali project, under section 35D of the Act. Considering the above facts and also following the principal of judicial discipline, I also uphold that the Assessing Officer is not justified in rejecting the assessee's above claim and it is directed that the expenses of ₹ 96,10,000, incurred on Pali Project, are entitled to be amortised under section 35D of the Income-tax Act. Consequently, this ground of appeal is upheld. Similar findings were given for the assessment year 2008-09 by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Now the Revenue is in appeals before us. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax Departmental representative argued that the assessee is in the infrastructure pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture. They are not capital expenditure because the assets in the form of road, bridge etc. is not owned by the assessee and used for business purposes. As per the contract, the assessee is allowed to recover its investment as well as profit on it on the basis of terms and conditions of contract. The assessee is showing income generated from the toll as revenue and accordingly debiting the expenses on the basis of period of toll and revenue generated consistently and matching principle of accountancy, therefore, he requested to confirm the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). He further argued that hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the assessee's own case in the assessment year 2006-07 similar additions w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the assessee has shown revenue receipts accordingly the expenditure is to be allowed on matching principle of accountancy. In the assessee's own case by the co-ordinate Bench in I. T. A. Nos. 1545 to 1547/JP/2008 assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 and I. T. A. No. 106/JP/2010 assessment year 2006-07 has decided vide order dated May 22, 2009 for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 as under : The first appellate order on the issue is reasoned one, to which we fully concur with, hence, the same is upheld with this finding that the Assessing Officer, whose approach has been relied upon by the learned Departmental representative before us, was not justified in disallowing the above claimed amortisation of expenses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
