Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2010 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (10) TMI 651 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance - Expenses on the Portal Development - Since, expenditure in question was incurred for developing of website for disseminating information like advertisement expenses - Though the expenditure in question may yield enduring benefit to the assessee but no new capital asset was acquired by the assessee - the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Indian Visit.Com (P) Ltd. [2008 -TMI - 30661 - DELHI HIGH COURT]wherein it has been held that expenditure on development of website with a view to disseminating the information about assessee's business activities amongst its clients is revenue expenditure even though resulting in enduring benefit - Decided in favour of assessee. Bad Debts written off - inter corporate deposit - the contention of the assessee that inter corporate deposits in question were given during the normal course of financing business in which the assessee was engaged could not be controverted by the Revenue. No material was brought on record by the Revenue to show that interest income earned on deposits in earlier years were not assessed as business income of the assessee and deposits in question were not treated as asset of financing business of the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee. Bad Debts written off - Advance given for purchase of shares for trading purposes - Since, assessee purchased shares of the company in question in earlier year and shown the same as investment in contradistinction to trading shares - In absence of any material brought on record by the assessee we find no error in the finding of the lower authorities to the effect that advance was given to M/s. Ficon Lease and Finance Ltd., for not purchasing shares for trading - Thus, decided against the assessee. Interest charged u/s. 234B - At the time of the hearing the Learned Authorised Representative of the assessee did not make any submission on this ground of appeal - Therefore, it is dismissed for want of prosecution.
|