9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee reads as under:- ''2. Disallowance of Share Issue Expenditure- Rs. 1,19,672/- a. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure incurred in increasing the Share capital is not deductible u/s 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. b. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that, fees paid to Registrar of companies is for the purpose of increasing the Share capital for extension of industrial unit. c. Further, the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that sec 35D also applies for such substantial expansion of undertaking. d. The learned ClT(A) having admitted that there was an expansion of industrial undertaking erred in holding that the fees paid is not deductible u/s 35D''. 3. Ld. Counsel for the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t April, 2006 or after the said date. Once the assessee is claiming that there was an expansion of industrial undertaking, onus lies on the assessee to prove such claim. Assessee having failed to do so, we are of the opinion that lower authorities were justified in denying the claim u/s.35D of the Act. Ground No.2 of the assessee stands dismissed. 6. Ground No.3 raised by the assessee reads as under:- ''3. Disallowance of excise duty element on warranty - Rs. 18,10,764/- a. The learned CIT(A) erred in wrongly understanding that the debit in respect of excise duty for materials issued on warranty constitutes provision and not actual expenditure. b. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the details and written submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee could not have been denied the claim u/s.43B of the Act. We therefore set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allow the claim of C18,10,764/-, being excise tax paid on warranty goods. Ground No.3 of the assessee stands allowed. 10. When ground No.4 is taken, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he was not pressing this ground. Accordingly, ground No.4 is dismissed as not pressed. 11. Ground No.5 raised by the assessee reads as under:- ''5. Disallowance of Prior period Items -Rs.3,92,473/- a. The Prior period items consists of the sales tax payment of Rs. 2,23,903/- and Rs.l,68,570/- pertains to prior period expenses accounted during the year. b. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that, out of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that part of the expenditure was sales tax dues actually paid during the previous year relevant to the impugned assessment year. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the issue can be verified afresh by the ld. Assessing Officer. We set aside the orders of the authorities on the issue of allowability of the claim of prior period expenditure of C3,92,473/- and remit it back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for consideration afresh in accordance with law. Ground No.5 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Ground No.6 of the assessee reads as under:- ''6. Disallowance of expenditure towards gift- Rs. 11,20,515/- a. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the expenditure t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the paper book. The entries show wide range of debits varying from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 1,OO,OOO/- without any details, except 'TRFR TO GIFT', 'GIFT FOR CUSTOMER', 'DIWALI GIFT', ''TRFR FROM MISC. EXP'', TRFR FROM ENTERT, GIFT EXP. DBTD TO SALES PRO-TSFRD', 'WEDDING GIFT', MARRIAGE GIFT', 'GIFT FOR VENDOR', etc. On 31.03.2006 alone amongst so many other debit entries pertaining to Gift, amounts of Rs. 1,89,380/-, Rs. 3,51,093/-, Rs. 1,OO,OOO/-, Rs. 75,OOO/- and Rs. 50,OOO/- have also been shown as Gift expenses. The appellant had not produced any other details and documents either before me or the AO, to elicit confidence in the veracity of the claim. Except the list of debit entries said to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
