9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easoned. - Decided against revenue. Disallowance for repairs to leased building by disregarding provisions of section 30/37 - Assessee submitted that the assessee has incurred expenses towards repairs on leased premises - revenue authorities disallowed the same by holding that only current repairs are allowable as deduction u/s 30 - HELD THAT:- As per the facts of the present case, the assessee entered into lease agreement of Tata Motors wherein the plot of land along with building was leased out to the assessee for a period of 60 months. Those expenses incurred by the assessee pertain to the current year i.e. during the substances of agreement. The assessee has already placed on record the details of expenses incurred on repairs. In this respect, we wish to place reliance on the following judicial precedents in the case of CIT Vrs. HEDE Consultancy Ltd. [ 2002 (6) TMI 19 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that expenditure incurred by the assessee on repairs and renovation of premises taken on lease was revenue expenditure and allowable u/s 30 - we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and hold that the expenditure for the current repair incurred by the assessee are allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d commission expenses. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of both the parties partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now before us, the revenue as well as assessee have filed their respective appeals I.T.A. No. 3847/Mum/2014 (AY 2009-10) 5. First of all we take up revenue s appeal in ITA No. 3847Mum/2014(AY 2009-10).The grounds of appeal are mentioned herein below:- 1. The order of the CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow expenditure of ₹ 52,17,597/- by holding that the only requirement for claiming expenses is that it should be incurred on research related activities and should be revenue in nature without appreciating that the assessee failed to furnish supporting documentary evidences to establish that the expenditure were made towards the Research Development activities. 3. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the decision of the CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the AO be restored. 6. We have heard the counsels for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee were on the improvement of the designs of the existing machinery. Ld. AR also submitted that during the year under consideration, the assessee has undertaken the projects relating to improving standard machine category and in this respect relevant documents evidencing various phases of activities carried in improving the standard machine have been categorized while submission dated 2.12.11. It was further submitted that the said written submissions were also submitted before Ld. CIT(A). After appreciating the submissions made by both the parties, Ld. CIT(A) concluded that the assessee had expended research related developments for the purpose of business. Therefore, necessary directions were given to the AO for verifying the details of the expenditure. On the contrary Ld. DR could not point out any defect from the documents annexed in paper book. No new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld CIT (A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in not allowing deduction u/s 35 of the Act in respect of research and development expenses or in alternative to allow expenses u/s 37(1) of the Act. 9. Since, we have already decided identical ground in ITA No. 3847/Mum/14 for AY 2009-10 filed by the revenue as ground no. 1. Therefore, following our own decision in the aforementioned appeal, we apply the same findings in the present appeal which is applicable mutatis mutandi. Resultantly this ground of appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Ground No. 2 10. This ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance for repairs to leased building by disregarding provisions of section 30/37 of the Act. 11. Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee has incurred expenses towards repairs on leased premises. The assessee further claimed that the same as revenue in nature as the same do not giving rise to any enduring benefit. Ld. AR further submitted that although the AO has mentioned in the assessment order that assessee has not submitted any details whereas on the contrary, all t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee. 14. Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that assessee has paid commission of ₹ 42,59,211/- in connection with the business carried out by the assessee. It was further submitted that a sum of ₹ 18,48,636/- paid as commission was disallowed by the AO and upheld by Ld. CIT(A). Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had paid commission in accordance with the agreement entered into with the party as the said commission charges have been paid based on the orders which were received by the assessee through the efforts of said commission agents. It was also submitted that since the commission agent had rendered services for which they raised invoices and thereafter the company has paid such commission after deduction of applicable withholding tax and issued TDS certificate. It was also submitted that all payments of commission were made through banks. 15. We have heard the counsels for both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. Before we decide the merits of the case, it is necessary to evaluate the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
