9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irrespective of the fact that huge expenditure towards renovation of factory building in view of the decision in the case of Ballimal Naval Kishore vs. CIT 224 ITR 414 (SC) and the decision of the Hon.Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Saravana Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 201 (SC). The CIT(Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that the expenditure under the head repair and maintenance should come within the purview of current repairs i.e. the expression used in section 31(1) of the Act, and hence, not an allowable expenditure u/s.37(1) of the Act. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In the instant case, the Learned Assessing Officer observed that the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elevant provisions of section 37(1) is extracted as under:- (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head Profits and gains of business or profession . 6. We thus find only those nature of expenditures which are covered under section 30 to 36 of the Act are excluded from the ambit of section 37 of the Act. In other words, the expenditure other than of the nature described under section 30 to 36 of the Act can be allowed as deduction under section 37 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re has not been answered by the High Court. The question, therefore, arises whether it is an expenditure of the nature contemplated by s. 37 of the IT Act. The High Court has, in its discretion, remitted both these questions to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. 7. We further observe that it is not in dispute in the instant case that the expenditure in question was not for acquiring any new asset and was not personal expenditure and it is also not in dispute that the same was laid out or expended for the purposes of business only. Thus, in our considered view, conditions of section 37 were fulfilled and satisfied. Thus, in our considered view, the expenditure in question is allowable under section 37 of the Act. We therefore, uphold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x(Appeals) observed that the explanation of the assessee regarding the business necessity of the foreign visit was plausible and no material was brought on record by the Learned Assessing Officer to show that the trip was undertaken for some non business purposes. Observing as above, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) deleted the addition in question. 11. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of toothbrushes. We find that no material could be brought on record by the revenue to show that the visit to Pakistan was for some other purposes than the business of the assessee. Further, if the argument of the Learned Assessing Officer is accepted then the same will imply that when an assessee does not have any prio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
