9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Rama Rao, Member (A) And S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Member (J) Assessee by : NONE Revenue by : Shri Pradip Hedaoo ORDER Per S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM 1. These three appeals by the assessee against the common order dated 30-11-2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur ['CIT(A)'] for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, respectively. 2. We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. Thus, the assessee called absent and set ex-parte. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal by hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material available on record. 3. First, we shall take up appeal in ITA No. 26/NAG/2017 for A.Y. 2009-10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CIT(A) sought remand report from the AO. The AO in his remand report observed that the assessee's contention is not acceptable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Punjab State Industrial Corporation Vs. CIT reported in 225 ITR 792 (SC) which held that the fee paid to the Registrar for expansion of the capital base of the company was directly related to the capital expenditure incurred by the company and although incidentally that certainly help in the business of the company and may also help in profit-making, it still retains the character of a capital expenditure. The said remand report was furnished to the assessee wherein we note that the assessee replied by reiterating its arguments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entally would help in the business of the company resulting into profit-making, in our opinion is in the character of a capital expenditure. 7. Further, we note that in ground No. 17 it was contended that sum of ₹ 50,000/- is contra entry which was entered by mistake and ₹ 5,610/-+ ₹ 510/- paid as filing fee to ROC towards regular expansions which are eligible for deduction. To sum up, the expenditure incurred towards ROC of ₹ 1,75,110/- is disallowed and to this effect the order of CIT(A) is justified. Regarding ₹ 50,000/- + ₹ 5,610/- + ₹ 510/- we find in Para No. 12 of the impugned order, the CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the same while giving effect to its order, therefore, we uphold the di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
