9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2010-11 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai, [CIT(A)], Appeal No.CIT(A)-15/IT-20/12-13 dated 10/03/2015 qua confirmation of disallowances of expenditure for ₹ 192.30 Lacs. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 23/01/2013 wherein the income of the assessee has been determined at ₹ 493.13 Lacs after certain disallowances as against returned income of ₹ 300.83 Lacs e-filed by the assessee on 29/09/2010. 2. None has appeared for assessee and no valid ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iture in full in its computation of income. The Ld. AO, treating the same as preoperative expenditure, disallowed the same. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee agitated the same before Ld. CIT (A) vide impugned order dated 10/03/2015 wherein Ld. CIT(A), after due consideration of factual matrix, confirmed the stand of Ld. AO by observing as under:- 3.8 On these facts, I find that the appellant though have rightly considered all these expenses incurred for the process of set up of unit Hyderabad, New Delhi as preoperative expenses in their books of accounts, but wrongly claimed in toto in P L A/c in A.Y.10-11, the subject matter of this appeal. Thus in this case following the practice of taking such pre-operative expenses by first capitalizin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act. Hence the action of the AO to disallow pre-operative expenses debited for an amount of ₹ 1,92,30,263/- instead of debiting them as per provisions u/s 35D of the Act, being in order has to be upheld and hence disallowance made by A.O. are upheld. Ground No.1 taken by the appellant is dismissed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. After due consideration, we find nothing on record which controvert the findings of both the lower authorities. The pre-operative expenditure could not be allowed to the assessee since it has been noted that the business was not set up by the assessee during impugned AY. Therefore, we find nothing perverse in the findings of lower authorities. 6. The appeal stand dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
