9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent appeal is linked to disallowance made by Assessing Officer towards fees and service charges paid to above two concerns for the assessment year 2008-09 and finding or outcome of the appeal for assessment year 2008-09 would have bearing on the present appeal. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and consistent with the view taken by the co-ordinate Bench for assessment year 2008-09[ 2015 (12) TMI 1844 - ITAT MUMBAI] we set aside the appeal to the file of learned CIT(A) and direct him to reconsider the issue in accordance with law, after considering outcome of appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2008-09. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. No. 2489/Chny/2019 - - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enditure. 2.4 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the business and ad hoc disallowance is not permissible under the provisions of the Act. 2.5 The CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the AO in treating the balance 80% of fee and services charges as enduring in nature and disallowing an amount of ₹ 2,40,57,443/-. 2.6 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Act does not recognise the concept of deferred revenue expenditure and amortisation is allowed only for certain expenses specified under section 35D 35DD and 35DDA of the Act. 2.7 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the fee and service charges does not fall within the purview of the expenditure spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 2008-09 disallowed a sum of ₹ 3,15,73,894/- u/s. 40a(ia) of the Act for failure to deduct tax at source u/s. 195 of the Act. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority, but could not succeed. The learned CIT(A) for the detailed reasons recorded in his appellate order dated 25.06.2019 has dismissed the appeal filed by assessee by following his predecessor CIT(A)'s order for assessment year 2008-09, where additions made by the Assessing Officer towards 20% of ad-hoc disallowance of fees and service charges and remaining 80% of amortisation of deferred revenue expenditure has been upheld. Being aggrieved by the learned CIT(A)'s order, assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... De Construction (SGMDC) and Saint GobainPlaco SAS, France (SG Placo) The Assessing Officer has disallowed fees and service charges paid to above two parties for the assessment year 2008-09 on ad-hoc basis and has also applied provisions of section 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and amortized remaining expenditure over a period of five years. The appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 has been set aside by the Tribunal to the file of learned CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to decide issue after considering additional evidences filed by the assessee. The assessee claims before us that issue in present appeal is linked to disallowance made by Assessing Officer towards fees and service charges paid to above two concerns f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
