9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r that the expenditure has not been incurred. Since the assessee has established the expenditure incurred on account of commercial expediency, so the commercial expediency is to be viewed from the view point of businessman / assessee. The facts on record indicate the impugned expenditure is on account of public visits of State ministers, local elected representatives and other dignitaries to the city of Nashik and the premises of society, who have helped the assessee in getting more contracts for labour, therefore, commercial expediency established. In the facts and circumstances, the expenditure was rightly made by the assessee for business purpose and the same was rightly directed by the CIT(A) to deleted the expenditure incurred wholly a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 237 ITR 574. He, therefore, asked the assessee to explain how it is entitled to deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(vi) of the I.T. Act. 4. It was explained by the assessee that the claim of the assessee has been accepted by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal for past several years. However, the AO held that the decision of the Tribunal has not been accepted by the department and an appeal has been filed before the Hon ble High Court. Therefore, rejecting the various submissions made by the assessee the AO made addition of ₹ 96,25,009/- to the total income of the assessee by disallowing the claim of deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(vi) of the I.T. Act. He also disallowed an amount of ₹ 1,75,303/- on account of advertisement expenses. 5. In a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iety but a district federation of labourers cooperative society and income earned by federation cannot be said to be attributable to the collective disposal of labour of its members as contemplated in section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of I.T. Act. On the other hand, the Authorized Representative has supported the order of CIT(A) and submitted that this issue is covered in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2007-08 in ITA No.195/PN/2011, wherein, this issue was decided in favour of assessee by observing as under: 3. After hearing the learned DR and perusing the material on record, we find that the Assessing Officer has not allowed the deduction despite the fact that in assessee s own case in ITA No. 1064/PN/1984 dated 5- 5-2006 for A.Y. 1980-81 the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d before us on behalf of revenue. We find that a similar issue arose in A.Y. 2009-10 which is a speaking order on the issue, wherein, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire advertisement expenditure of ₹ 3,32,320/- by resorting only to auditors remark in the statutory audit. In appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the same. It is a settled legal position that by way of expenditure businessman s business may be benefitted in a number of ways. The assessee who can see the reasonability of the expenditure incurred in question in the interest of business, so the payment has to be viewed in the larger interest or expediency of assessee s business. The assessee has incurred expenditure of ₹ 3,32,320/- on account of advertisement in said ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usively for the growth of assessee s business. Accordingly, the same is upheld. A similar issue arose in other years. Facts being similar, so following the same reasoning, the order of CIT(A) is upheld who has allowed the expenditure which was disallowed by the assessee on account of non business purpose. 5. In the result, all three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed as indicated above. 5.1 Since the facts are identical and nothing contrary to that of earlier years has been brought on record by the AO in the assessment order, respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble ITAT in appellant s own case for A.Yrs. 2006-07, 2008-09 2009-10, the additions of ₹ 96,25,009/- and ₹ 1,75,300/- are deleted. Ground Nos. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd on perusal of the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) I do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) who has allowed the claim of the assessee by following the consistent view of the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal in assessee s own case. Merely because the department has not accepted the order of the Tribunal and an appeal has been filed before the Hon ble High Court, the same in my opinion cannot be a ground to take a contrary view than the view taken by the Tribunal. Since the Ld.CIT(A) while deciding both the issues in favour of the assessee has followed the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the preceeding years and nothing was brought to my notice that the decision of the Tribunal has been reversed by the Hon bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
