9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disallowance of expenses incurred in relation to earning of exempt income at 1% of the administrative expenses, by relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom.) without appreciating that expression used in the judgment was 'reasonable basis' and not adhoc estimation basis as done by the Tribunal? (b) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the decision of CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of depreciation in respect of underlying assets, without appreciating that the lease transactions were transactions of finance/loan only? (c) Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the issue of dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment Year involved was prior to Assessment Year 2008-09. (ii) Mr. Kotangle, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue states that an identical issue raised in Income Tax Appeal No. 281 of 2014 for Assessment Year 1999-2000, has been admitted. Thus, this question also warrants admission. (iii) We note that in the Revenue's appeal being Income Tax Appeal No.281 of 2014 relating to Assessment Year 1999-2000, the aforesaid question with regard to disallowance under Section 14A of the Act was admitted on completely different facts. In that case, the Respondent-Assessee itself had during the assessment proceedings claimed a specifiec amount (which was more then the reasonable disallowance done by the Tribunal) as a disallowable expendit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of this Court in CIT v/s. Ogilvy and Mather Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 4260 of 2009 dated 26th September, 2011) - wherein the Court approved the finding of the Tribunal for expenses incurred in relation to providing lighting and power installation etc., were in the nature of office expenses necessary for carrying the business of the Assssee. (ii) In any case, both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal in the present facts have rendered a finding of fact that the expenses claimed were normal repair and renovation expenditure. Therefore, allowable as revenue expenditure. This finding of fact has not been shown to be perverse in any manner. (iii) Therefore, the question (d) as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
