9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capital work-in- progress - ITAT held that the expenses incurred were in connection with the existing business and admittedly were of routine nature like salary, professional fees, etc., and these expenses are otherwise clearly of revenue in nature, thus allowable as revenue expenses - HELD THAT:- A judgment of this Court in CIT-3 Vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. [ 2016 (10) TMI 181 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] where the Court held that where new cellular towers were constructed by cellular operator in addition to existing tower and no new business was set up, if project was abandoned, expenditure so far incurred would be allowed as business expenditure. When we brought this judgment to the notice of Mr. Suresh Kumar and observed that the facts in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ided to abandon those projects which were not expected to pay back. Respondent abandoned some of the projects which were incomplete at that point of time and claimed expenses pertaining to such abandoned projects as revenue expenses. The expenditure incurred were salary, professional fees, etc. which were revenue in nature and did not bring into existence any new asset. Detailed explanation was filed with the Assessing Officer. 2. Assessing Officer was not convinced with respondent s submissions and held that the expenditure was incurred for creation of new projects and these projects were capital assets of its business which were to yield enduring benefit. Assessing Officer also held that by parking such expenditure under the head capi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and we have narrated the facts of the case including the breakup of the expenditure which includes the fee of ₹ 2,57,335/- paid to the Architect and some expenses of ₹ 46,379/- incurred on old capital work in progress which was abandoned and cost of damaged cabinets and that too, amounting to ₹ 12,776/-, total expenditure including all three of the head is ₹ 3,16,490/-. It is not in dispute that the project could not be accomplished because of the reason that the place where it was to be undertaken had a poor quality of soil and all the construction already damaged. The other articles bought by the assessee also got damaged and, therefore, in that fact situation, the Tribunal was fully justified in holding that such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
