TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in the preceding year i.e. A.Y.2005-06 such addition was made but the same was deleted by ld. CIT(A) and accordingly we find no infirmityin the order of ld. CIT(A), who has rightly deleted the addition so made by the AO. - Decided against revenue. Disallowance u/s 14A - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The present year is A.Yr.07-08 on which rule 8D is not applicable. Therefore in view of the decision of Kolkata Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs M/s.Varanasi Commercial Ltd., [2012 (3) TMI 401 - ITAT KOLKATA] for A.yr.2007-08 where the disallowance has been restricted to 1% of the exempted income. Following the same we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) who has rightly restricted the disallowance to 1% of the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12 - - - Dated:- 29-4-2015 - Mahavir Singh, JM And B P Jain, AM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri K L Kanak, JCIT For the Respondent : Shri Anup Sinha, CA ORDER Per Shri B P Jain,AM. These two appeals of the Revenue arise from two different orders of ld.CIT(A)- IV, Kolkata for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2006-07 each dated 23.12.2011. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No.693/Kol/2012 for A.Yr.2007-08: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 73,54,257/- on account of repair maintenance of building since the assessee company will get enduring benefit of such expenditure over the years. 2. That on the facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et enduring benefit of such expenditure over the years. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 10,23,942/- on account of repair maintenance of machinery since the assessee company will get enduring benefit of such expenditure over the years. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in restricting the disallowance of ₹ 5,95,665/- u/s 14A since his decision is not made methodically and he did not consider the necessity of Sec.14 properly. 5. That the appellant craves for leave to add, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. First of all we take up the appeal of the revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n maintenance of garden amounting to ₹ 1,36,267/- and such expenditure cannot be treated towards repair. No evidence has been brought on record by the AO by increasing such expenditure which is stated to be repairs. The assesse has not acquired any new asset of enduring nature or there was no expansion or extension of assets. It was mentioned by the ld. CIT(A) that in the preceding year i.e. A.Y.2005-06 such addition was made but the same was deleted by ld. CIT(A) and accordingly we find no infirmityin the order of ld. CIT(A), who has rightly deleted the addition so made by the AO. Thus ground no.1 of the revenue is dismissed. 5. As regards ground no.2 of the revenue the brief facts of the case are that AO made the disallowance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icable. Therefore in view of the decision of Kolkata Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs M/s.Varanasi Commercial Ltd., vide ITA No.1539/Kol/2011 order dated 07.03.2012 for A.yr.2007-08 where the disallowance has been restricted to 1% of the exempted income. Following the same we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) who has rightly restricted the disallowance to 1% of the exempted income at ₹ 2005/- Thus ground no.5 of the revenue is dismissed. 10. As regards ground no.4 of the revenue the brief facts of the case are that AO made disallowance of ₹ 11,93/352/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the ground that no tax had been deducted in respect of rent payment of ₹ 11,93,352/- and such disallowance has been made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed. 14. As regards ground no.3 of the revenue in the present case the facts are identical to the facts in ground no.2 in ITA NO.693/Kol/2012 for A.Yr.2007-08. Our order is identically applicable in the present case in ground no.3. Thus ground no.3 of the revenue is dismissed. 15. As regards ground no.4 of the revenue in the present case the facts are identical to the facts in ground no.3 in ITA No.693/Kol/2012 for A.yr.2007-08. Our order is identically applicable in the present case in ground no.4. Thus ground no.4 of the revenue is dismissed. 16. Ground no.5, being general in nature does not require any adjudication. 17. As regards ground no.1 the brief facts of the case are that the AO has made addition of ₹ 1,13,076/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
