9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned ACIT erred in disallowing repairs and maintenance expense of Rs. 11,96,298. 1.2 The learned ACIT failed to appreciate that the expenses are incurred for the business, fully supported and paid by the Appellant. The learned ACIT also failed to adjust the amount of Rs. 837,409/- from amount disallowed, being expenses reversed during the period. 1.3 The Appellant prays 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 Rs. 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 reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment, the assessee was, inter-alia, saddled with repairs & maintenance disallowance of Rs. 12.73 Lacs and disallowance of deferred revenue expenditure of Rs. 16.49 Lacs which form the subject matter of present appeal before us. The assessee being resident corporate assessee is stated to 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 11.96 Lacs was paid to an entity namely M/s Proconvis Consultants Private Limited (Proconvis) f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at M/s Proconvis has raised an invoice on 26/12/2012 for Rs. 11.96 Lacs in the name of M/s Thyrocare. The invoice is stated to be for designing / execution work at certain premises. However, the ledger extract of the said vendor as appearing in assessee's books would clearly show that the assessee, itself, has made payment of Rs. 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 Rs. 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 e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. 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 Rs. 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 submissions dated 21/12/2015 to Ld.AO had provided complete details as well as supporting documents of the expenditure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
