TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... license agreement, the sharing of the premises with group concern is allowed and it is undisputed fact that the assessee has incurred an expenditure towards the service charges of the shared premises to its group concern. Even otherwise when the expenditure is claimed by one of the either parties, there is no double deduction then it has no revenue effect if the expenditure is allowed in the hands of the assessee instead of other group concern. When the CIT (A) has accepted the contentions of the assessee and allowed the expenditure from the date of the occupation of the premises, there are no reason for disallowance of the claim of the assessee for intervening period from taking the premises on leave and license till shifting of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of society charges and brokerage paid to Dresdner Bank AG, on the ground that the same pertain to the period when the premises were not occupied by the appellant. 2.1 The first grounds of appeal is regarding bad debts written off amounting to Rs.69,56,529/-. The AO disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee does not fulfill the conditions laid down u/s 36(2)(i) because such debts are not recorded in the profit and loss account in the name of the share broker. 2.2 On appeal, the CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 2.3 We have heard the learned AR and ld. DR as well as considered the relevant record. At the outset, we note that when the assessee has earned the brokerage on the transacti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (SC), it is not necessary for the assesses to establish that the debt, in fact, has become bad and irrecoverable. It is enough if the bad debts are written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of assesses. In view of the decision of the Special Bench as well as the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court cited above, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 2.5 Grounds of appeal no.1 is allowed 3. Grounds of appeal no.2 and 3 are regarding disallowance on account of rent paid by the appellant to Dresdner Bank AG,to the extent of Rs.22,85,162 and enhancement of enhancing the assessment by CIT(A) making an addition of Rs.11,14,392 on account of society charges and brokerage paid to Dresdner Bank AG. 3.1 Facts relating to this issue a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ety charges and brokerage paid by the assessee. Whereas, the revenue is aggrieved by the deletion of the addition regarding the rent and service charges paid by the assessee towards the sharing of the office premises from the month of September 2000 onwards. 3.3 Before us, the learned AR submitted that the M/s Dresdner Bank AG has taken the premises for office on leave and license at 16th and 17 th floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai. As per leave and license agreement the bank was allowed to share office premises with its group concerns. The said premises were shared with M/s Kleinwart Benson ltd. a sister concern of the assessee. He has further submitted that the assessee shared the said premises with other concern which was tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR relied upon the order of the AO. 3.5 We have considered the rival contentions and relevant record. It is undisputed fact that the assessee has incurred an expenditure towards the service charges of the shared premises to its group concern which has taken the same on leave and license. As per leave and license agreement, the sharing of the premises with group concern is allowed as contemplated in clause 11 of the agreement. The intention of the sharing the premises exists right from the beginning as evident from the agreement of leave and license. Even otherwise when the expenditure is claimed by one of the either parties, there is no double deduction then it has no revenue effect if the expenditure is allowed in the hands of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his appeal reads as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made in respect of rent amounting to Rs.36,39,670/- included the shared service cost without appreciating that there was no rent agreement in respect of the rent shown as payable by the assessee 8. The issue raised by the revenue in this appeal is common to that of the issue raised by the revenue for the assessment year 2001-02. Since we have decided the issue in appeal pertaining to the assessment year 2001 -02 against the revenue no separate consideration and adjudication is required. Hence, we dismiss this ground. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2001-02 is allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
