9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 - - - Dated:- 5-5-2016 - Shri H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri J. S. Reddy, Accountant Member For the Petitioner : Ms. Rashmita Jha, Sr. DR For the Respondent : S h . Vikas Srivastava, Adv., Sh. Mayank Aggarwal, CA Aditi Goyal, CA ORDER Per H. S. Sidhu, JM The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 31/12/2013 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-VII), New Delhi on the following grounds:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 12,44,678/- being store relocation expenses by treating the same as revenue expenditure? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 84,80,000/- being debentures restructuring by treating the same as revenue expenditure? 3. That the order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or forego any ground(s) of the appeal either before or at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 31.12.2013 has deleted the additions in dispute and allowed the appeal of the Assessee. 4. Now the Revenue is aggrieved against the impugned order and filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised by the Revenue in the grounds and requested that the additions in dispute imposed by the AO may be sustained. 6. On the contrary, during the hearing, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order, hence, the same may be upheld. Moreover, he submitted that as regards the issue raised in ground no. 1 relating to deletion the addition of ₹ 12,44,678/- being store relocation expenses by treating the same as revenue expenditure is concerned, the same was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) by following the order of his predecessor in the assessment year 2003-04, in which the Revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 24.10.2012 passed in ITA No. 183 to 186/Del/2011 (Ayrs. 2003-04 to 2005-06) has set aside the issue to the file of the AO. Later, AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rious documents produced by the appellant, it is observed that the expenses were in the nature of rent of godown, security guard expenses, transportation charges for shifting of materials from one place to another, loading and unloading charges, dismantling charges and routine repair and maintenance charges and other expenses of similar nature. From the very nature of these expenses, they are found to have been incurred by the appellant in the normal course of carrying on in its business activities and are revenue in nature. Further, such expenditure on account of store relocation expenses amounting to ₹ 12,44,678/- forms only 0.22% of the sales revenue of the appellant for the relevant assessment (i.e. ₹ 5,699.64 lakhs). In view of the aforesaid, I see no reason to differ from the views of my predecessor in AY 2003- 04. Accordingly, these grounds of appeals are allowed and the disallowance made by the AO is deleted. 7.1.1. We find that in the asstt. Year 2003-04, the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the similar ground and against which the Revenue came up in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 24.10.2012 passed in ITA No. 183 to 186/Del/2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) by following the jurisdictional High order in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Guardian Ltd. 222 CTR 526 (Del.) by holding as under:- I have considered the submissions of the appellant, the findings of the AO and the facts on record. Keeping in view the ratio of the above referred decisions and on going through the decision of the jurisdiction Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Guardian Ltd. (Supra), it is observed that the restructuring fees paid by the appellant to renegotiate the rate of interest on debentures represented the present value of differential rate of interest which should be allowed as revenue expenditure. It is also seen that the above issue on similar facts was decided in favour of the appellant by the Hon ble ITAT in its order for the AY 2003-04 to 2005-06. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant and the disallowance made by the AO is deleted. 7.2.1 We note that the Tribunal vide order dated 24.10.2012 passed in ITA No. 183 to 186/Del/2011 (Ayrs. 2003-04 to 2005-06) in assessee s own case has held as under:- We have heard both the sides, considered the material on record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
