9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 28.12.2011 for assessment year 2009-10. 1. The first issue in this appeal of revenue is against the order of CIT(A) in allowing Puja expenses and temple expenses as business expenses. For this, Revenue has raised following ground no.1: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in directing the AO to allow puja expense and temple expense for Rs. 5,78,610/- since such expenses are non-business expenditure and the assessee company could not establish the relationship between the necessity of such expenditure and the purpose of the business carried on by the assessee company." 2. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the assessee and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Briefly stated f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he fact that expenses on account of cess on green leaf is related to 100% agricultural operation and SLP is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of AFT Industries Ltd. - vs- CIT (270 ITR 167) in the light of which Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue n favour of the assessee." 5. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No. 589/K/2012 for AY 2007-08 dated 19.12.2013, wherein Tribunal has allowed as under: "5. We find that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of AFT Industries Ltd. V. CIT 270 ITR 167 (Cal), wherein it has been decided by Hon' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... failed to deduct TDS and he disallowed the commission to the extent of Rs. 11,35,554/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who allowed the claim of assessee by observing vide para-7.1 of his order as under:- "7.1 It is seen that AO made this disallowance on the basis of Supreme Court decision in case of M/s. Transmission Corporation of India reported in 239 ITR 587 wherein it was held that only way to escape liability is to get no deduction certificate or lower rate deduction certificate from AO. Appellant on the other hand has submitted that this issue was further clarified by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of GE India Technology Centre P Ltd. Vs. CIT in 44 DTR Supreme Court 201,in which Supreme Court has clarified that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) and we confirm the same. This issue of revenue's appeal is also dismissed. As the issue is covered in assessee's own case in A.Y. 2007-08, we confirm the order of CIT(A). Accordingly, this issue of Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 8. The fourth issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) in directing the AO to delete the Nursery Expenses without appreciating the fact that nursery expenses has always been held as capital in nature. For this, Revenue has raised following ground no. 4: "4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not allowing nursery expenses of Rs. 3548465/- as revenue expenditure while the AO held the same to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant is allowed." 11. We find that the assessee has incurred expenditure for replantation in the existing area and plants grown in the nursery were used for replacement of dead plants within the plantation area. This fact has not been denied by revenue before CIT(A) or before us now. The AO also noted that this is re-plantation in the existing area and replacement of dead plants but by going through the volume of expenditure he made disallowance and Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tasati Tea Ltd., (supra) has considered the issue and allowed the claim of replacement of plants in existing area against dead plants by observing as under: "But, however, we are not inclined to interfere with the order allowing the expenditu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... educt Wealth Tax from the net profit to ascertain book profit u/s. 115JB." 13. We have heard both the parties and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Briefly stated facts are that the AO while computing book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act adjusting the book profit by the amount of provision made for Wealth Tax Act Rs. 1.10 lac. 14. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who relying on the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Usha Martin Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (2003) 81 TTJ 158 (Cal) and allowed the claim of assessee. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) as he allowed the claim of assessee by relying on the decision of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Usha Martin Industries Ltd., (supra). Hence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
