TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. ₹ 5,64,945/- made on account of disallowance of legal and professional fee and integration fee. 3) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing. 2. At the outset, none appeared before us on behalf of the assessee nor submitted any request for adjournment. Accordingly, considering the nature of issues findings of the ld. CIT(A), the Bench proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. DR. 3. Adverting first to ground no.1 in the appeal, facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring loss of Rs. ₹ 53,02,959/- filed on 14.11.2007 by the assessee, having Online Travel Portal, was s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt year 2006-07, has allowed the 1/5 expenses claimed by them as deferred revenue expenditure to the extent of Rs. ₹ 17,28,832/-. I have gone through the appellant's submission and CIT(A)-VIII's order dated 23.02.2010, in which after a detailed discussion, the CIT(A)-VIII's has admitted the expenses of Rs. ₹ 86,44,159/- incurred by them in assessment year 2005-06, as deferred revenue and thereby he has allowed 1/5 of the total expenses amounting to Rs. ₹ 17,28,832/- as an allowable claim in assessment year 2006-07. Since, in this year also the facts are same and I do not see any reason to disagree with the findings give in CIT(A)-VIII's order, accordingly, in this year I uphold the appellant's cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 23.02.2010 allowed 1/5 of the total expenses. Since the facts in the year under consideration were similar to the facts obtaining in the preceding years, the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order allowed the claim. There is nothing to suggest as to whether or not the Revenue preferred any appeal in the AY 2006- 07. In ACIT vs. Ashima Syntex Ltd.,310 ITRSP 1(SB,Ahmedbad), it was observed that the concept of deferred revenue expenditure is essentially an accounting concept and alien to the Act. The relevant provisions of the Act recognise only capital or revenue expenditure. Deferred revenue expenditure denotes expenditure for which a payment has been made or a liability incurred, which is essentially revenue in n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the capital and revenue and the same does not recognise of any concept of deferred revenue expenditure. In the instant case, even in the preceding year i.e. AY 2006-07, similar claim of expenses has been allowed by the ld. CIT(A) and there is nothing to suggest as to whether or not the Revenue preferred appeal in that year.. In a number of judgments viz. Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 91 ITD 280 (Hyd.), Jt. CIT v. Modi Olivetti Ltd. [2005] 4 SOT 859 (Delhi), Asstt. CIT v. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. [2005] 1 SOT 347 (Delhi), Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2005] 3 SOT 572 (Delhi) and Charak Pharmaceuticals v. Jt. CIT [2005] 4 SOT 393 (Mum.), it has been affirmed that where any expenditure is treated as a deferred revenue expe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
