9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring a brand but for use of a brand. The benefit is clearly in the revenue field since the benefit of this payment is on year to year basis and does not result in any enduring or lasting benefit beyond the relevant assessment year - CIT(A) was thus quite justified in holding that the expenses are revenue expenses in nature as these expenses are incurred to earn profits for the year. As regards the Assessing Officer s grievance that the CIT(A) ought to have disallowed the amount under section 40(a)(ia), it was never the case of the Assessing Officer. In any event, in view of the fact that second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) has been held to be retrospective in effect, in the case of decision of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal [ 2014 (6) TMI 79 - ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese grounds of appeal, some material facts of the case need to be taken note of. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had disallowed ₹ 1,63,33,576/- on account of payment of operation and management charges paid to Adarsh Foundation and ₹ 2,15,31,183/- being reimbursement of expenses relating to Kesar Sal Hospital, on the ground that these expense were capital expenses in nature. In coming to this conclusion, the Assessing Officer had noted that the payments were made under an agreement as a result of which assesse will have the right to use the tradename/brand SAL HOSPITAL and, therefore, the assesse has made these payments for purchase of operation and management rights of SAL Hospital . As th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any enduring or lasting benefit beyond the relevant assessment year. Learned CIT(A) was thus quite justified in holding that the expenses are revenue expenses in nature as these expenses are incurred to earn profits for the year. As regards the Assessing Officer s grievance that the CIT(A) ought to have disallowed the amount under section 40(a)(ia), it was never the case of the Assessing Officer. In any event, in view of the fact that second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) has been held to be retrospective in effect, in the case of decision of a coordinate bench in the case of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal Vs ACIT (149 ITD 363), copy of which is deemed to be attached to and forming part of this order as well, and as it is an undisputed position that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
