9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 17,45,463/- on account of disallowance of Revenue expenses u/s 37 of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of expenditure incurred on installation of Electric Transformer treating the same as Capital expenditure without appreciating the fact that the expenses incurred towards capital asset and hence the expenditure incurred was not in the nature of Revenue expenditure. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be set aside and that of the AO be restored. 4. The appellant craves leave to add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see is with regard to expenditure incurred by assessee and paid to Gujarat Electricity board for installation of transformer is revenue in nature or capital expenditure. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee is a builder and developer, the assessee paid the impugned amount to Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) for installation of transformer at a project developed by assessee. The Assessing Officer treated such expenditure as capital and disallowed under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on his propounding various theories which is not at all relevant for determining the nature of expenditure. The assessee made such payment to Gujarat Electricity Board. The ownership of such transformer is always with the Gujarat Electricit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore us. The ld. CIT(A) on appreciation of facts, held that the land and other amenities which were forming part of project was handed over to the ultimate buyers and ownership was transferred to the society. The builder (assessee in the present case) no more enjoys the right to the property. The installation of transformers was not for the ultimate benefit of builder. The expenses were borne out of the receipt from ultimate beneficiaries. In such cases, the expenses like purchase of land and other expenses was just a work in progress for the assessee and not an asset with enduring benefits for the assessee. On the basis of such observation, the ld. CIT(A) allowed relief to the assessee. We also in agreement with the contention of ld. AR of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
