9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et aside the finding of the CIT(A) in this regard and direct the Assessing Officer to decide the matter afresh by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee by considering the relevant documents produced by the assessee in connection with the Cavere Trading Pvt. Ltd. in accordance with law. Accordingly this issue is being decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of office renovation expenses - Held that:- The company has incurred one time renovation expenses like civil work, electrification etc for setting up the network of the branches which has been included in repair and maintenance expenses shown under the group `Office and other expenses' . It is not in dispute that the said expenditure was incurred in respect of runni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s filed the present appeal against the order dated 18.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) ] relevant to the A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- Assessee by: Shri Sanjay Parikh Department by: Shri Sambit Mishra 1. On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in not admitting additional evidence with respect to investment in share capital by Cavere Trading Private Limited of ₹ 65,479,290/- despite the same being submitted immediately after first remand report, and there by upholding action of the Assessing Officer in making addition under section 68 alleging unexp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal) erred in upholding action of the Assessing Officer in not granting depreciation on residential Renovation expenses of ₹ 1,049,879. 7. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, and in law, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) erred in upholding action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of ₹ 994,324 alleging difference in books of account of the Company and AIR information without appreciating that your appellant had not dealt with Sundaram BNP Paribas Asset to such a huge extent; and the amount of ₹ 769,000 recorded by the said party was an error on their part. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 22.09.2008 declaring total loss to the tune o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are capital by Cavere Trading Private Limited of ₹ 6,54,79,290/-. Before going further it is necessary to advert the finding of the CIT(A) in this regard:- 3.4 In view of the AO s finding in remand proceedings, receipts as follows remain unconfirmed: 1. Kotak Mahindra Rs.10,00,000/- 2. Vivek Talwar Rs.30,00,000/- 3. Neil Shah Rs.8000/- 4. Cavere Trading Private Limited Confirmation already submitted on 12.03.2013 5. Shamshad Ahmed Rs.6,00,000/- As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he relevant documents produced by the assessee in connection with the Cavere Trading Pvt. Ltd. in accordance with law. Accordingly this issue is being decided in favour of assessee. ISSUE NO. 2 3:- 6. These issues have not pressed by the assessee, therefore these issues are hereby dismissed being not pressed. ISSUE NO. 4:- 7. Under this issue the assessee has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in connection with upholding the order of the Assessing Officer in making the disallowance of office renovation expenses to the tune of ₹ 23,66,226/-, treating the same as expenditure of capital in nature. The learned representative of the assessee has argued that the assessee was in the business of courier services and had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... novation of leased business premises is liable to be considered as revenue expenditure. In view of the above mentioned law i.e. Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 350 ITR 324 (Mad.) and CIT Vs. Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 132 (T AP) and ACIT Vs. Sarkar Jewellers P. Ltd. (2014) 33 ITR (Trib) 16 (Ahd.), we are of the view that the expenditure to the tune of ₹ 23,66,226/- is revenue in nature which is allowable in accordance with law. In view of the said circumstances the finding of the CIT(A) is wrong against law and facts, therefore, the same is hereby ordered to be set aside. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. ISSUE NO.5 6:- 9. Under this issue the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
