Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 220 - ITAT AHMEDABADDeletion made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act - Disallowance of Royalty expenses - Payment of TDS not made – Held that:- CIT(A) was rightly of the view that while deleting the addition has noted that Assessee had deducted the TDS on the last day of previous year and the entire amount of TDS was deposited in bank before the due date of depositing TDS - no amount can be disallowed under the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act with respect to amounts on which TDS was deposited in time - the deposit of TDS in bank was through cheques and the cheques were not dishonoured - Revenue could not controvert the findings of CIT(A) – thus, there is no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue. Disallowance of building repair and maintenance expenses – Majority expenses pais through cheques – Held that:- CIT(A) rightly upheld the addition made by AO and noted that Assessee had failed to give the proof of expenditure before AO - the Assessee has failed to prove that the expenditure has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and the expenditure is not in the nature of capital expenditure - in the absence of any material on record to support the Assessee’s claim, there was no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) – Decided against Assessee. Disallowance of depreciation on trade mark – Depreciation not allowed on entire amount – Held that:- CIT(A) perused the agreement entered by the Assessee with J.M. Advertising and Marketing Ltd and has noted that the ownership of trademark did not rest wholly or partly with the Assessee and the payment were of enduring benefit and capital is in nature and therefore it was neither allowable u/s 37(1) as Revenue expenditure nor qualified for depreciation u/s 32(1) of the Act - the amount of depreciation claimed did not match with the additions made and he therefore directed the AO to verify the figures and if needed rectify the mistake – as such no material has been brought on record by Assessee to controvert the findings of CIT(A) – thus, there was reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) – Decided against assessee.
|