9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idy as capital receipt. This is an ad hoc disallowance. AO has not pointed out any specific expenditure which was in the nature of revenue expenditure. AO cannot presume it. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the said disallowance. Accordingly, the assessee's Ground No. 1, 2 and 3 are allowed. Disallowance of 10% of expenditure out of Travelling, Conveyance, repairs and maintenance - Addition on the ground that these expenditures were in cash, no evidence filed to prove it - HELD THAT:- It is important to understand here that the ld. CIT(A) has given a finding that many of these expenditures were not supported by bills. Before us also the Assessee has not claimed that all the expenditures were supported by bills. The onus is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact that the entertainment tax subsidy received by the assessee is a receipt in lieu of its income. It is a receipt generated because a part of the assessee's income has not been subjected to taxation by the government and therefore, such concession bear the character of income on revenue account. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the entertainment tax under the Bombay Entertainment Duty (Amendment) Act 2001, does not contain any specific direction on how the proceeds are to be utilized and therefore, such incentive cannot be regarded as an aid to the construction of the multiplex or towards any capital outlay. 4. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iplex. The assessee has treated the Entertainment tax subsidy as capital receipt. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order hold it as revenue receipt. The ld. CIT(A) held it as Capital receipt following Hon'ble Bombay High court. The AO made certain disallowance u/s. 37 of the Act, in the assessment order. 3. The Ld. Departmental Representative(ld. DR) for the Revenue relied on the order of the Assessing Officer(AO). 4. Decision on the issue of Entertainment Subsidy: It is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaphalkar Brothers (ITA 1036 of 2010 order dated 8.6.2011). It is also observed that Hon'ble SC vide order dated December 7, 2017 upheld the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nance on the ground that these expenditures were in cash, no evidence filed to prove it. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the AO and ld. CIT(A). 6.1. Heard ld. DR and perused the material available on record. It is important to understand here that the ld. CIT(A) has given a finding that many of these expenditures were not supported by bills. Before us also the Assessee has not claimed that all the expenditures were supported by bills. The onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the expenditure and to prove that the expenditure were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee, In this case the assessee has not filed any documents to prove that the expenditure were wholly and exclusively for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
