9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... December 2013. Thus we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) has wrongly appreciated the evidences produced before him but did not consider the relevant evidence on record, therefore we set aside the finding on this issue and allowed the payment of the rent on account of extra amenities for the period December 2010 to December 2013 - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of deferred revenue expenditure - whether the deferred revenue expense is required to be allowed or not? - Held that:- Matter of controversy has been adjudicated by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in case of Commissioner of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai V/s. Raymond Ltd. [2012 (4) TMI 127 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein it is specifically held that the preoperative expens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordance with law - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purpose. - I.T.A. No.7581/Mum/15 - - - Dated:- 23-9-2016 - SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM For The Assessee : Shri Sushil U. Lakhani For The Department : Shri B.S.Bist ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 29.10.2014 filed by the assessee passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 20, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) ], Mumbai relevant to A.Y.2011-12. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds:- 1. Disallowance of Rent of ₹ 215,000/-:- On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in disallowing ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as filed the present appeal before us. ISSUE NO.1:- 4. Under this issue the assessee has challenged the confirmation of disallowance of rent to the tune of ₹ 2,15,000/-. The rent has been paid by the assessee to the licensor under the head agreement of amenities lies at page 14 of the paper book. This agreement is the part and parcel of the leave and license agreement executed by the licensee i.e. assessee and the licensor. The CIT(A) has declined this piece of evidence on the ground of that the said agreement for extra amenities nowhere speaks about this fact that what kind of amenities was being provided by the licensor. The vouchers produced by the licensees / assessee has also been declined. We are of the view that thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, we set aside the finding on this issue and allowed the payment of the rent to the tune of ₹ 2,15,000/- on account of extra amenities for the period December 2010 to December 2013. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. ISSUE NO:-2 5. Under this issue the assessee has challenged the disallowance of deferred revenue expenditure to the tune of ₹ 25,880/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same on the ground of that the paid up capital of the assessee company was only ₹ 1,00,000/- and only 5% of the same can be allowed u/s.35D of the Act. Therefore, the assessee was found eligible for deduction claimed of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of the assessee against the revenue. ISSUE NO.3:- 6. Under this issue the assessee has challenged the confirmation of disallowance to the tune of ₹ 58,635/- u/s.69C of the Act. The contention of the assessee is that the employees of the appellant incurred various expenses on behalf of the appellant from time to time. The Accountant of the appellant used the account for these expenses on the date on which expenses were incurred by the employee and not on the day on which it was reimbursed to the employees. These circumstances left to negative balance being reflected in the cash book. However, in some cases the expenses and withdrawal from the bank were on the same date. As the expenses were booked before withdrawal en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
