9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shings, treating the same as of capital nature. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee has taken on lease certain premises from one Shri Prakash Mehta and has got done interiors and decorations, incurring an expenditure of Rs.10,41,523, to make it fit for use as its office. The assessing officer rejected the claim of the assessee for deduction of the said expenditure treating it as of Revenue nature, by treating the same as of capital nature, vide assessment order dated 29.10.2007 passed under S.143(3) of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the view taken by the assessing officer. Hence, assessee is in second appeal before us. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee, reiterating the contentions urged before the lowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f expenditure. This approach of the Revenue authorities is not correct and cannot be approved. We also cannot adjudicate the ground meaningfully without having facts as to description, use, function of each of the items, which is under dispute. We accordingly set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A), and restore the matter to the file of the assessing officer, with a direction to examine the nature of the item-wise expenditure claimed by the assessee, and recompute the disallowance, if any warranted, in accordance with law and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish the requisite details of the expenditure incurred by it on various items, so as to facilitate proper determination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a)(ia) of the Income tax Act, 1961 has to be given its natural meaning, and, going by strict interpretation, I am of the firm view that section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is applicable only to expenditure which is payable as on 31st March of every year and cannot be invoked to disallow the amounts which have already been paid during the previous year, without deducting tax at Source. I therefore, agree with the view taken by Shri Mahavair Singh, JM and answer the question accordingly. The matter may now be placed before the Division Bench for passing appropriate orders, in the above listed cases, in the light of the majority view of the Members consisting of the Special Bench." Since factually, in the instant case, the payments in question were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the learned counsel for the assessee supports the case of the assessee, we find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has decided similar issue in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s. CIT (328 ITR 81) and the same is relevant for the ratio that the provisions of Rule 8D should be made applicable even to the assessment years prior to the amendment to the said rule. It is also relevant to mention that the said judgment of Bombay High Court considered the decisions cited above. It has been held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in that case, inter alia, as follows- "67. Even in the absence of sub-ss. (2)and (3)of s.14A and of r.8D, the AO was not precluded from making apportionment. Such an apportionment would have to be made in orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
