9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed CIT(A) confirming the treatment of subscription paid for website amounting to ₹ 2,20,000 as capital expenditure. 3. Briefly the stated the material facts are like this. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer noticed that the assessee has incurred an expenditure of ₹ 2,20,00 on subscription paid for website for new employees recruitment. According to the Assessing Officer, since the expenditure gives an enduring benefit to the assessee, the same was treated as capital expenditure and added to the total income of the assessee. After allowing depreciation, the disallowance was worked out to ₹ 88,000. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal but without any success. 4. Having heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer disallowed the claim of written off of ₹ 1,63,900. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 9. Having heard the rival contentions and having perused the material on record, we are of the considered view that the genuine write off of advances to employees is inherently revenue expenditure in nature as this will also part of employees cost but we have also noted that all the relevant details were not before the authorities below. While it may not be indeed possible to furnish the conclusive evidence to the effect that the amounts have become unrecoverable, the onus nonetheless on the assessee to give complete de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces of the case and in law CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the expenses has not been incurred wholly and solely for the purpose of business but to accommodate other group entities and hence such expenses were required to be disallowed u/s.37(1) of the Act. 14. Learned representatives fairly agree that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the ITAT in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2003-04, copy of which is placed on record. We find that the CIT(A) following the decision of the ITAT in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2003-04(supra) has allowed the ground. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
