9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns sourcing fees paid to Maruti Udyog Ltd. - Held that:- The issue has been decided in favour of the assessee in preceding assessment year. In view of the aforesaid submissions of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, we uphold the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) as found that the loan sourcing fees was paid to Maruti Udyog Ltd. and is amortized over the period of loan agreement. He found that only the amount which is amortizable for the current year has been debited to the Profit & Loss account. He also found that the Assessing Officer has not provided any basis why he considers the expenditure as capital in nature. Further, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) found that in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2008– ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment is directed against the order dated 8th September 2014, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) X, Delhi, for the assessment year 2007 08. 2. In total, Department has raised five grounds. 3. Grounds no.4 and 5, being general in nature do not require adjudication. 4. In ground no.1, the Department has challenged allowance of assessee s claim of deduction of ₹ 21,17,250, towards loan processing charges. 5. Brief facts are, the assessee a non banking finance company (NBFC) is engaged in hire, purchase, finance and loan business. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 31st October 2007, declaring loss of ₹ 12,06,02,070. During the assessment proceedings, on examin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Learned Counsels appearing for both the parties have submitted before us that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal referred to by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions of both the learned Counsels, we uphold the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by dismissing the ground raised. 8. In ground no.2, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction of an amount of ₹ 4,80,84,411, towards loans sourcing fees paid to Maruti Udyog Ltd. Being of the view that by incurring such expenditure, assessee has derived enduring benefit, the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals) in granting partial relief to the assessee in respect of sales promotion expenses. 12. Brief facts are, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer on verifying the Profit Loss account found that the assessee has claimed sales promotion expenses of ₹ 10,75,34,132. Therefore, he called upon the assessee to explain why the expenditure claimed should not be disallowed as was done in the preceding assessment year. In response, assessee justifying its claim submitted some supporting evidence. However, the Assessing Officer opining that complete verification of the expenditure could not be made in the absence of supporting evidence and there is substantial increase in the expenditure compared to the preceding assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o demonstrate that sales promotion expenses was ₹ 74,62,146. He, therefore, submitted the issue may be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. 15. We have heard the parties. Learned Authorised Representative submitted, the expenditure of ₹ 10,75,34,132, shown under the head Administrative and Other Expenses was towards different types of services received by the assessee and sales promotion services is one amongst them. He submitted, after considering the bifurcation of expenses incurred by the assessee, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has disallowed 10% of ₹ 74,62,146, which was incurred towards sales promotion expenses. He submitted, the matter can be restored back to the Assessing Officer for ver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
