Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1340 - ITAT MUMBAIEligibility of deduction u/s 35(1)(iii) - alternative claim of assessee u/s 80G - Held that:- Insofar as the deduction u/s 35(1)(ii)/(iii) of the Act is concerned, assessee failed to submit before us as to how the deduction is allowable in the absence of approval by the CBDT. Thus, the order of CIT(A) on this issue is sustained. However, in respect of the alternative claim of assessee that the donation paid by it to “Research Foundation for Jainology” is to be allowed as deduction u/s 80G, we are inclined to set aside this matter to the file of Assessing Officer to examine this issue afresh in accordance with law. CIT(A) should have entertained the claim of assessee as there are no restrictions in his appellate powers to entertain any claim of assessee which is not made in the return of income. This position is clearly explained by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (2012 (7) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ). Thus, respectfully following the said decision, we direct the Assessing Officer to consider the alternative claim of assessee u/s 80G of the Act in accordance with law. Expenditure incurred on wire mesh fitted on the buses plied by assessee for the school children revenue or capital expenditure - Held that:- We are of the view that the expenditure incurred by assessee on the Aluminium mesh fitted on the buses is not an asset which is creating an enduring benefit to the assessee. Every addition to the asset is not a Capital expenditure. The Aluminium mesh provided to the buses is not in the capital field but is of revenue in nature and there is no enduring benefit to the assessee. Thus, we reverse the orders of the authorities below and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the expenditure as Revenue expenditure.
|