Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

JCIT (OSD) , Circle-4, Kolkata Versus M/s. J. Thomas And Company Pvt Ltd

2015 (6) TMI 877 - ITAT KOLKATA

Disallowance of Repair & maintenance of building - revenue v/s capital expenditure - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- We concur with the views of the ld. CIT(A) that ₹ 79,56,858/- included expenditure on security amounting to ₹ 42,32,673/- and on 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ich 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 exempted income at ₹ 2005/- Decided against revenue.

Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - no tax had .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

om the assessee. Therefore no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) can be made. In such circumstances and facts of the case we concur with the findings of ld. CIT(A) - Decided against revenue.

Non reconciliation of ITS details - addition on difference deleted by CIT(A) - Held that:- AO has not made adequate enquiry as to why such difference arose. The contention of the assesee that the amount appearing in ITS details has been subsequently changed by the deductors as sanctity of such ITS cannot .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

anak, 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 & maintenan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

14A since his decision is not made methodically and he did not consider the necessity of Sec.14A properly. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 11,93,352/- u/s 40(a)(ia) without considering the fact that unless the payee submit certificate u/s 197 the assessee company is obliged to deduct tax at source. 5. That the appellant craves for leave to add, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eleting the addition of ₹ 66,60,893/- on account of repair & maintenance of building since the assessee company will get 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, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

disallowance at ₹ 73,54,257/- out of total expenditure of ₹ 79,56,858/- incurred in connection with repairs and maintenance of owned and lease buildings taken on rent. The allegation of AO was that the repair expenses are about 264% of the opening WDV of the buildings and there is no closing WDV in the block of building as the entire building has been sold off. It was explained that there are buildings which are owned by the assessee even though in Tax Audit Report the entire block .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

owed on the same. 3.2. Before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee made the submissions. The ld. CIT(A) vide para 3.3 to 3.5 allowed the claim of the assessee. 4. We have heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. We concur with the views of the ld. CIT(A) that ₹ 79,56,858/- included expenditure on security amounting to ₹ 42,32,673/- and on maintenance of garden amounting to ₹ 1,36,267/- and such expenditure cannot be treated towards repair. No evidence has been br .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

issed. 5. As regards ground no.2 of the revenue the brief facts of the case are that AO made the disallowance of ₹ 10,08,114/- out of total expenditure of ₹ 15,89,698/- incurred towards repairs and maintenance of plant and machinery. The AO made disallowance since the WDV as on 01.04.2006 was ₹ 22,50,354/-, cost of repairs was ₹ 14,58,185/- which is about 65% of WDV. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee made the submissions before ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) accepted the exp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

made. In the circumstances and facts of the case we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A), who has rightly deleted the disallowance made by AO. Thus ground no.2 of the revenue is dismissed. 8. As regards ground no.3 of the revenue the brief facts of the case are that AO made disallowance of ₹ 39,691/- u/s 14A in respect of exempt income. Such disallowance has been made on estimate basis at 0.5% of average investment. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the same. 9. We have heard the rival conte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 AO on the basis of Tax Audit Report being Schedule-7 of the tax Audit Report. 10.1. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance vide para 7.2. to 7.2.2 of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re ld. CIT(A). This matter was duly brought to the notice of the AO as is evident from the assessment order. Since the payees did not have taxable income therefore no deduction of tax at source arise from the assessee. Therefore no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) can be made. In such circumstances and facts of the case we concur with the findings of ld. CIT(A)vide para 7.2 to 7.2.2. Thus ground no.4 of the revenue is dismissed. 12. Ground no.5 of revenue, being general in nature does not require any .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version