9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und that the CBDT has not issued notification in official gazette for the period from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2009 though the foundation was approved by the Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, Government of India. In the alternative, assessee contended that deduction should have been allowed u/s 80G of the Act for the donation given to them. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee-company, which was running a school, filed its return of income on 24.9.2009 declaring NIL income. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 12.12.2011 determining the income of assessee at Rs. 42,38,240/-. When completing the assessment, Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80GGA of the Act on the donation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s 35(1)(ii) or 35(1)(iii) of the Act. He also observed that the notification no. 264 of 2004, which was earlier issued, was of 20.10.2004 and it was valid only for the period from 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2006. The current assessment year being 2009-10, Assessing Officer denied the claim of assessee. Assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) and CIT(A) affirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee claimed before the CIT(A) that "Research Foundation for Jainology" was approved u/s 35(1)(iii) upto 31.3.2006 and they have applied for renewal to CBDT. The assessee contended that CBDT has rejected the application on 28.5.2008 and Writ Petition was filed against the rejection of the application. Thus, CIT(A) concluded that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was explained and it was held that appellate authorities have jurisdiction to admit the claim which was not there before the Assessing Officer or in the return filed originally. 5. The ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the decisions relied on. Insofar as the deduction u/s 35(1)(ii)/(iii) of the Act is concerned, the learned counsel for the assessee failed to submit before us as to how the deduction is allowable in the absence of approval by the CBDT. Thus, the order of CIT(A) on this issue is sustained. However, in respect of the alternative claim of assessee that the donation paid by it to "Research Foundation for Jaino ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iture. On appeal, CIT(A) sustained the action of Assessing Officer in treating the said expenditure as Capital expenditure observing that Aluminium wire mesh installed is in the nature of capital expenditure providing enduring benefit to the usability of the assessee. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee before us submits that there is no enduring benefit in providing Aluminium mesh to the buses as it is only a current repairs to the existing asset as assessee has to take some precautionary measures for the safety of children. Therefore, Aluminium mesh was provided on the buses which transport the school children to school. The addition to asset by Aluminium mesh has no enduring benefit and is to be allowed as Revenue expenditure only. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
