9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cerning separate years. Since the appeals raise common issues, for convenience, the facts in ITA No.724/2017 are taken as reference. 2. The original return for the Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2008-09 reported inter alia that the assessee/respondent had sold its business. At the same time, it had reported similar expenditure as previous years. The AO added back Rs. 16,12,31,000/- for Assessment Year 2006-07 and following the same reasoning disallowed a sum of Rs. 28,41,30,727/-. The AO's reasoning was that since the concerned business had been sold, the assessee could not have reported such high levels of expenditure. In so concluding, the AO projected the expenditure incurred by the assessee for the times it actually carried on business an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices relating to Medianet business. The assessee also furnished particulars of income earned by the new company, M/s Optimal Media Solutions Ltd., from the business. Similarly, regarding the Sale of contents, the assessee submitted that this business hitherto entrusted to the assessee by its holding company was withdrawn w.e.f. 1.10.2004. Necessary communications withdrawing the above businesses from the assessee were also furnished to the AO. In this backdrop of the facts, the AO noticed that albeit such businesses were not carried on by the assessee during the year, the overall expenses of the assessee were still on northwards sojourn. This was held on the strength of the percentage of the expenses to revenue at 62.8% for the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iture incurred by the assessee qua these businesses withdrawn by the holding company. The AO made disallowance of Rs. 16.12 crore simply by means of a mathematical exercise carried out by him. If he found the expenditure incurred by the assessee to be on higher side, it was incumbent upon him to specifically point out as to which expenses were not incurred for the purposes of business. No such exercise worth the name has been carried out. In our considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting this addition made by the AO on ad hoc basis. This ground is, therefore, not allowed." 3. This Court is of the opinion that since the findings of the lower appellate authorities, especially the CIT(A) and the ITAT are concurrent on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
