9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) was right on facts and in law in deleting the additions of Rs. 40,59,000/-by the AO on account of capitalizing the expenses claimed as revenue expenses, holding that expenses were incurred for construction of building. Since the assessee will get enduring benefit from it, the expenditure was rightly treated as capital expenditure by the AO. 2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was right on facts and in law in deleting the additions of Rs. 40,59,000/- following the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the assessee's case for assessment year 2001-02 even though facts were different in the A Y 2001-02. The issues in that year related to expenses on repair, on rain water gutter, wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r may kindly be allowed and the orders(s) of the Assessing Officer and/ or Commissioner (Appeals) may kindly be quashed, set aside, annulled or modified." 4. Assessee is a company engaged in the business of selling of the clothing for pulp paper and board industry. It filed its return of income on 20/9/2009 declaring income of Rs. 1003739/-. Assessment under section 143 (3) of the act was passed on 28/12/2000 at Rs. 121430797/-. The Ld. assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 2038517/- on account of shifting expenses for shifting of boiler and cylinder holding them same to be capital expenditure in nature. The Ld. assessing officer allowed depreciation on it. Further disallowance of Rs. 4059000/- was made on account of repair expenditur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment year. It was further stated that the same were allowed in case of the assessee by the coordinate bench while deciding the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2008 - 09. Therefore it was stated that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. 7. The Ld. departmental representative vehemently relied on the order of the Ld. lower authorities. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also the order of the Ld. lower authorities. The above issue has already been decided by the coordinate bench in case of the assessee for assessment year 2008- 2009 vide para No. 2 - 5 of the order. The coordinate bench in para No. 5 has held as under:- "5. We have carefully gone through the record. No error in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year 2009 - 10 is partly allowed. 12. The revenue has challenged the deletion of the addition of Rs. 4059000/- on account of repairs expenditure by the ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal. 13. The Ld. departmental representative relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 14. The Ld. authorized representative relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and submitted that assessee has not created a new asset therefore the expenditure incurred by the assessee is not capital in nature. 15. We have carefully considered the rival contention. The brief facts of the issue is that assessee has incurred an expenditure of Rs. 2028916/- on account of repairs to the building. Further expenditure of Rs. 2481089/- was also incurred for the new scrap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a High Court in assessee's own case wherein the expenses on repair waterproofing groups and renovation outside the main shed building were allowed as revenue expenditure. Therefore respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench following the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in assessee's own case we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) in allowing the claim of the assessee holding that repairs and renovation expenditure with respect to the shed is revenue in nature. In the result ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed. 16. The 3rd ground in the appeal of the revenue was against the order of the Ld. CIT (A) deleting the addition of Rs. 9819356/- on account of technical kn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee the remuneration was paid for at the rate of 5% on the sale price of the product. The Ld. CIT (A) has considered the various clauses of the agreement and held that the know-how was to remain the sole and exclusive property of the provider and the appellant company is required to fully exploit the same. Further the technical know-how was also to be paid in relation to the sales affected by the assessee company. It is also required to be noted that assessee is engaged in the same business for which technical know-how is by the assessee and it is not at its an altogether a new line of business which is developed. The Ld. departmental representative could not point out any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A). In view of above facts we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
