9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 67,00,746/- made by the A.O on account of Recruitment & Training Expenses." 2. We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties in view of orders of the authorities below, material available on record and the decisions relied upon. GROUND NO.1 3. At the outset of hearing, the Ld. A. R submitted that the issue raised in this ground is fully covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of ITO Vs. Spice Communications Ltd, (2010) 35 SOT 78 (Delhi), ITO Vs. Spice Distribution Ltd, ITA No. 4898/Del/2011 (A.Y 2008-09) order dated 23/03/2012 and Sapient Corporation Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 5263/Del/2010 (A. Y 2006-07) order dated 6/5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e related to brand building and are of capital nature. As such an amount of Rs. 1,92,76,191/- being 25% of total expenditure of Rs. 7,71,04,765/- was disallowed and added to the total income. The Ld. CIT (A) has, however, found substance in the explanation of the assessee and has deleted the disallowance. Against this action of the Ld. CIT (A), the revenue is in appeal. 5. Having gone through the decisions relied upon, we find that the issue raised in the ground has already been decided by Delhi Bench of the Tribunal under almost similar set of facts in favour of the assessee in the above cited cases of I.T.O Vs. Spice Communications Ltd. (Supra), I.T.O Vs. Spice Distribution Ltd (Supra) and Sapient Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Supra). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmity in the first appellate order in this regard. The same is upheld. Ground No-1 is accordingly rejected. GROUND NO-2. 6. The Ld. A.R pointed out that the issue raised in this ground is also covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sapient Corporation Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (Supra). The Ld. D.R however, tried to justify the assessment order, he submitted that person specific services were rendered hence it was a benefit of enduring nature. 7. The A.O disallowed expenses of Rs. 67,00,746/- incurred by the assessee on a recruitment and training of the employees by observing that the same have given benefit of enduring nature and hence are capital in nature. During the year the assessee had inter alia in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as issued Accounting Standard 26 pertaining to intangible asset which is mandatory to be followed by all the companies in accordance with the provisions of Section 209 of the Companies Act 1956. In Accounting Standard 26, the Institute of Chartered Accountants has specified what could be classified as an intangible asset and capitalized in the books of accounts. In the above Accountant Standard, .it has been categorically stated that expenditure incurred on staff training and recruitment cannot be said to be intangible asset. Reproducing these provisions under Accountant Standard 26 and placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Empire Jute India Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR (SC) and Madras Industrial Investme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
