9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment year 2001-2002. The third appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A) dated 7.10.2005 relevant to assessment year 2002- 03. Since the issues involved in these appeals are similar in nature and even all the three appeals are related to the same assessee, hence all the three appeals, for the sake of convenience, are disposed off with this common order. ITA No.3423/Mum/10 ITA No. 4868/Mum/10 (relevant to assessment year 2001-02): In this appeal the assessee has assailed the retention of disallowance to the extent of 10% by the CIT(A) on account of brokerage paid by the appellant to ICICI Capital Services Ltd. (I-Cap) on account of issue of ICICI Safety Bonds amounting to ₹ 39,37,377/- and also of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o keep in mind the points raised by the learned DR as pointed out above while deciding the issue afresh and provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Where the assessing officer finds that evidence furnished by the assessee as listed in this order and transaction with I-Cap are genuine and the I-Cap has actually rendered services in procuring business in safety bonds, then brokerage so paid to I-Cap services will be allowed. 3. Thereafter certain additional evidences as directed by the Tribunal were produced by the assessee before the AO. However, the AO was not satisfied with the said evidences and thus observed that the assessee had failed to prove that any services were provided by I-Cap to the assessee. He thus ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to a definite conclusion that the observations of the assessee with I-Cap were genuine and the services were actually rendered by the I-Cap to the assessee. Then under such circumstances the token disallowance of 10% was not justified against the specific directions of the Tribunal in the case in hand. Even the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Arthur Anderson Co . [2006] 5 SOT 393 (MUM.) has observed that the very concept of token disallowance is bad in law because such a disallowance is inherently based on surmises and conjectures and devoid of a legally sustainable foundation. It would be a case where one accepts all the contentions but not the consequences flowing from accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e while disposing off ITA No.3423/M/10, we do not find any merit in the contention of the ld. D.R. Hence this issue is decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 10. The second issue raised in this appeal by the Revenue is regarding the deletion of the addition of ₹ 8,72,016/- which was made by the AO on account of software expenses treating the same as capital in nature. The assessee on the other hand claimed the same to be as Revenue in nature. 11. During the relevant previous year the assessee had incurred certain expenditure towards customization of computer software and claimed the same as revenue expenditure. The case of the assessee is that, these expenses were incurred for keeping up with constant moderni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
