9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where the assessee s business was being carried on. By expanding this amount, no new asset could be said to have come into existence and therefore, the expenditure was to be treated as revenue in nature. Finally, impugned disallowance as made by Ld. AO could not be sustained in the eyes of law - Decided in favour of assessee. Deferred Revenue Expenditure - Disallowance of non-revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- Assessee vide submissions to Ld.AO had provided complete details as well as supporting documents of the expenditure so claimed u/s 37(1). The payment has been made to Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. towards electricity bill and the same is clearly revenue in nature. The payment to APCPDCL is towards service li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the expenses as claimed ought to be allowed. GROUND NO. 2: Deferred Revenue Expenditure 2.1 The learned ACIT erred in disallowing amount of ₹ 16,49,705/- as nonrevenue expenditure. 2.2 The learned ACIT failed to appreciate that the said expenditure refers to payment made to various authorities on account of expenses and are fully supported. They are revenue in nature. 2.3 The appellant prays that the expenses as claimed being revenue in nature ought to be allowed. GROUND NO.3: Interest charged u/s 234B 3.1 The learned ACIT erred in charging interest u/s 234B of ₹ 38,32,230/- 3.2 The learned ACIT failed to appreciate that the tax liability as per the provisions of section 115JB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be engaged in the business of providing healthcare services. Disallowance of Repairs Maintenance Expenditure 4.1 During assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee claimed deduction of ₹ 20.38 Lacs under the head repairs maintenance-buildings. Upon perusal of details filed by the assessee, it was observed by Ld.AO that an amount ₹ 11.96 Lacs was paid to an entity namely M/s Proconvis Consultants Private Limited (Proconvis) for designing work of the premises. However, the invoices were issued in the name of M/s Thyrocare. Since the payment was stated to be not made by the assessee, the expenditure was disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. 4.2 Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee pleaded that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly show that the assessee, itself, has made payment of ₹ 3,51,711/- only to the vendor on 30/03/2013 which has been cleared from assessee s bank account on 10/04/2013. The amount of ₹ 8.37 Lacs represent debit note issued by the vendor and the expenditure has been reversed to that extent. The assessee has deducted due tax at source from the aforesaid payment. These facts would rebut revenue s allegations that the payments were not made by the assessee. The assessee s explanation that the invoice was inadvertently issued by the vendor in the name of group concern was to be accepted. Regarding the nature of the expenditure, the complete details of the same was placed before lower authorities and the expenditure was in the na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16,49,705/- Accordingly, the same was disallowed while framing the assessment. 5.2 Before Ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that payment to APCPDCL was incurred for sanctioning of additional electricity load for Hyderabad PET center. The stamp duty charges were stated to be for registering the lease agreement. The payment to MSEDCL was stated to be electricity charges for the month of March, 2013 whereas the balance amount of ₹ 2.55 Lacs was stated to be mere reimbursement in nature. However, the assessee s submissions could not find with Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the disallowances. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5.3 Upon perusal of documents, we find that the assessee vide submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
