9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ok on this issue. We find no merit in this submission. - issue in regard to this expenditure whether taken as deferred revenue expenditure or capitalised expenditure was expressly gone into by the Assessing Officer in his order and accordingly benefit to the extent of Rs. 40,000 as deferred revenue expenditure and 75 per cent as capitalised expenditure was extended. This was then upheld up to the Tribunal. In this view, the challenge on this issue really does not survive, as being entirely confusing or misconceived in nature. - - - - - Dated:- 3-1-2005 - Judge(s) : A. M. SAPRE., ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by A.M. Sapre J.- This is an appeal filed by the assessee under section 260A of the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndment, so as to properly appreciate the real controversy sought to be urged by the appellant in this appeal. Since the question framed does not exhibit whether any legal controversy is involved or/and if so, whether it really arises out of the order impugned, we heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the order passed by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, with a view to understand the real controversy. We feel that it would be proper to reframe the aforementioned questions, so that the points sought to be raised by the appellant become clear to the parties and will enable us to dispose of the appeal on the merits in terms of section 260A ibid. "1. Whether, the Tribunal was j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e entire sum of Rs. 5,93,128 was capitalised by the assessee, treating the same to be in the form of capital expenditure spent in construction of plant/machinery, i.e., prior to the commencement of business. On details being sought, the Assessing Officer found that a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was spent by way of expenditure in acquiring know how. In this view, the Assessing Officer taxed a sum of Rs. 1 lakh under section 35AB in the manner provided in the said section i.e., deduction of Rs. 1 lakh was allowed in six equal instalments in terms of section 35AB. So far as the balance amount of Rs. 4,93,128 was concerned, the Assessing Officer was of the view that since the assessee has not furnished full details of expenses it was not possible to work ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. It is against this order or one may say determination of Rs. 5,93,128, the assessee has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal. Since this court entertained the appeal on the question framed, we heard the matter in its entirety keeping in view the controversy originated from the order of the Assessing Officer referred to supra and reframed the questions so that one is able to know the issues involved. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, we find absolutely no merit in the appeal. In other words, even after reframing the questions, we are of the view that none of these questions really arises for consideration and even if they are held to arise because the appeal was admitted f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of expenditure but it can only be allowed in respect of expenditure which is incurred for bringing into existence the asset of enduring nature i.e., plant etc. Coming to the facts of this case, though the assessee claimed to have incurred a sum of Rs. 4,93,128 under this head and capitalised it for claiming its benefit, the Assessing Officer as observed supra did not grant the benefit for the whole amount but confined it to 75 per cent, of the total amount thereby denying it to the extent of 25 per cent. This he did in his sole discretion because he found that no adequate material was tendered by the assessee to prove the actual expenditure and its nature. In other words, the Assessing Officer held that the capitalisation of 75 per cent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as claimed for Rs. 58,875. This was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. We find no fault in this approach of the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Firstly, this also does not involve any question of law much less a substantial question of law. Secondly, in the absence of any adequate material, if the Assessing Officer has in his discretion declined to confine the deduction to the extent of Rs. 40,000 in place of Rs. 58,875 then it is not liable to be interfered with. Thirdly, the reasoning that this court has applied for upholding the entry of Rs. 4,93,128 the same applied to this entry as well. The submission of learned counsel for the assessee was that the expe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
