9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate, Ms. Meenal Goyal, C.A. For the Respondent : Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. These four appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of learned CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi all dated 28/02/2013. 2. At the outset, Learned A.R. submitted that these appeals involve common issue which is the penalty imposed by Assessing Officer and sustained by Learned CIT(A) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Learned A.R. in this respect filed a chart showing the issue-wise decision of Hon'ble Tribunal in respect of all four years. Learned A.R. submitted the issue No. 2,3, 4 6 have been allowed by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee whereas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Del/2013, ground no. 2 in ITA No. 3112/Del/2013, ground no. 3 in ITA No. 3113/Del/2013 and ground No. 2 in ITA No.3114/Del/2013 stand allowed for statistical purposes. 5. As regards the issue involved in Sl.No. 2 to 4, these issues have been decided in favour of the assessee. The relevant paragraphs of the findings of Hon'ble Tribunal, as contained in para 11 are reproduced below: 11. Having heard the rival submissions, we take up the issues one by one. In assessment year 2003-04, the assessee has challenged the 4/5th disallowance out of Technology Enhancement Fee, Agronomy Management Fee and Production Facility Management Fee and has raised the issue in grounds 3,4,5 and 6. The Ld. AR has drawn our atte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring benefit to the assessee company and, therefore, the allowability of expenditure had to be spread over 5 years, the lower authorities have not given any cogent reason for making the disallowance. Undisputedly, the factum of the fees having been paid is not disputed. Nor it is disputed that the impugned fees were paid for services which were, in fact, rendered by Technico Pty. Ltd. to the assessee company. Undisputedly, the impugned expenditure is not in the nature of capital expenditure. The lower authorities have placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Madras Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) while holding that since the benefit was accruing to the assessee over a number of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is claimed u/s 37(1) of the Act as long as the same is not capital in nature. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. vs. JCIT (supra), we are unable to concur with the findings of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) in this regard and while setting aside the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) on this issue, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the entire expenditure in the assessment year in which it is claimed. Accordingly, ground nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 in assessment year 200304 and identical ground nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8 in assessment year 05, ground nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 in assessment year 2005-06 and ground nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6 in assessment year 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds before the lower authorities and, therefore, it is our considered opinion that it will be in the fitness of things if the issue is reexamined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we restore the issue of expenditure on loose tools having been treated as capital expenditure by the AO/Ld. CIT (A) to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to re-examine the issue and, thereafter, adjudicate the issue as per law after giving due opportunity to the assessee to present its case. Accordingly, ground no. 7 in assessment year 2003-04, and identical Ground no. 4 in assessment year 2004-05, ground no. 2 in assessment year 2005-06 stand allowed for statistical purposes. 7. The issue listed at Sl.No. 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
