Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 456 - AT - Income TaxAllowable revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) - assessee company paid compensation for vacating the land, within the leased area - Held that:- Assessee has incurred an expenditure of ₹ 60 lacs during the previous year relevant to impugned assessment year and a claim u/s 37(1) was made during the course of assessment proceedings. The fact of incurrence of the expenditure and the fact that the said expenditure has been incurred for the purposes of the business has not been disputed. In the return of income, the assessee has claimed depreciation of ₹ 52.98 lacs however, the said depreciation relates to expenditure incurred in earlier years and which has been capitalized as well as expenditure incurred during the year under consideration on which depreciation has been claimed. In the earlier year i.e, AY 2013-14, the whole of the expenditure has been allowed as revenue expenditure and therefore, if we were to approve the approach of the Revenue, it will create an inconsistent position as far as this claim of expenditure is concerned. Once a claim is held to be legally allowed, there is thus no basis to restrict the quantum of such claim once other conditions for claiming such expenditure has been duly satisfied. Therefore, consistent with the position in the earlier year and following the decision of the Coordinate Bench referred supra, the whole of the expenditure of ₹ 60,00,000 incurred during the year is allowed as revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) - Decided in favour of assessee Addition towards contribution to PF and ESI - Held that:- The assessee company has deposited employee’s contribution to PF and ESI with delay of few days from the due dates, however the same were deposited before the due date of filing of the return of income U/s 139(1) which is evident from the order of the Assessing Officer. It was further submitted that the matter is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions in case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014 (5) TMI 222 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] and JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD AND RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD [2014 (1) TMI 1085 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.
|