9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Co. Ltd. There is no agreement between the two companies regarding the person who was to incur the repairs in the tenanted premises. These expenses were initially incurred by M/s Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. and were later on reimbursed by the assessee. According to the ITO, under s. 30(a)(i) only such repair expenses are allowable as are agreed to be undertaken by the assessee as a tenant. As there is no evidence that the assessee tenant had undertaken to bear the cost of repairs, the conditions are not fulfilled. The ITO rejected the claim under s. 37 also. The ITO seems to have laid strees on the fact that the parent company is getting 1/6th for repairs in the computation of its own income. There would thus be a double rebate not warranted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of the CIT(A). According to him it is not necessary to have any agreement for meeting the cost of repairs. This is really in the nature of unwritten agreement between the parent company and subsidiary company. The assessee company did require the premises in a proper and safe condition. Although, there is close connection, it is not always possible for the tenant to insist on getting all the repairs done by the landlord. As to the nature of expenditure, there is no dispute at all. In fact, similar items of expenditure have been incurred, in the past and allowed as below: DETAILS OF BUILDING REPAIRS AND MISCELLANEOUS REPAIRS Assessment year Building repair charges Miscellaneous repair charges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly attracted in this case. There is no capital expenditure involved. The incurring of expenditure was solely necessitated by business needs. In view of this factual and legal position, we see no merit in this ground of appeal which accordingly stands rejected. 7. The second point in appeal is regarding the allowance of productivity incentive bonus. The ITO considered this as bonus falling under the Bonus Act and disallowed the same. In appeal, the CIT(A) noticed that the bonus was paid in terms of agreement between the assessee and employees' union. Actually, as seen from the ITO's order the assessee has given 16 per cent bonus though in terms of Bonus Act it could have restricted the same to 8.33 per cent. Now even the CBDT instruc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
