TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition. It is also explained that the scope further included employee restructuring also so as to save the manpower cost and to achieve best utilization of human effort. , Thus it is clear that there was no creation of capital asset in the case of assessee company. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the ground raised by the Revenue - Decided against revenue Additional depreciation claim - Held that:- Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, we uphold the order of CIT(A). In our opinion the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly directed the Assessing officer to examine the claim of the assessee pertaining to additional depreciation on merits and, if found to be entitled, the same may be allowed to the assessee. There is no merit in this ground of appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 474/Chd/2014 - - - Dated:- 29-10-2015 - SHRI H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT MS. ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Sh. S.K. Mittal For the Respondent : Sh. Subhash Aggarwal ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A)-II, Ludh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) further observed that since no benefit of enduring nature resulted to the assessee, expenditure in question cannot be treated to be of capital nature. 4. After hearing the Ld. representatives of both the parties we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. In our view, if any asset is acquired and if it is a benefit of enduring nature, then, of course, assessee cannot get deduction of the amount for acquisition of land as Revenue expenditure. When land was not acquired, no capital asset has been acquired and therefore, the payment of ₹ 7,46,088/- is to be allowed as business loss. In our view, the CIT(A) has correctly held that the claim of the assessee as business loss and deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss ground No.1 of the appeal. 5. Ground No.2 of the appeal reads as under:- 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 1,41,500/- made by AO by treating the expenditure claimed by the assessee as deferred revenue expenditure in P L and incurred on employee restructuring and re-engineering of busine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) came to the conclusion that in this case study was conducted for the purposes of facilitating the business operation of the assessee and enabling the management and conduct of the assessee s business to be carried out more efficiently and more profitably. Accordingly, he held that the expenditure incurred was Revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure. 8. After considering the rival submissions, we do not find any valid ground in interfering with the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. The order of CIT(A) is perfectly correct and the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd v CIT (supra). In our considered view, the expenditure was essentially of Revenue nature as it was incurred for improvement of business practices linked with marketing and human resource utilization. It is claimed that the scope of the study relates to the promotion of products of company in order to sustain market pressure and to maintain its market position. It is also explained that the scope further included employee restructuring also so as to save the manpower cost and to achieve best utilization of human effor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of deduction u/s 80-IP was disallowed by the AO on the ground that the claim was not made in the original return of income nor any revised return was filed for this claim. The claim had been made during the assessment proceedings through the letter filed before the AO. The disallowance made by the AO was confirmed by me vide order dated 24.08.2012 in Appeal No. 44/ROT/IT/CIT(A)-II/Ldh relying on the case of Goetze India Ltd. Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench, vide its decision dated 24.5.2013, in the case of Budhewal Co- operative Society Ltd., in ITA No. 1077/Chd/2012, reversed my order and held that an assessee can raise additional grounds and make claims during the assessment proceedings and even during the appellate proceedings. The Hon'ble ITAT held as under:- 'We find that the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Ramco International (supra) allowed the claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act as the form No. 10CCB in respect of the said claim was filed during the assessment proceedings and it was held that the assessee was not to make any fresh claim and had duly furnished and submitted the form for deduction, there was no requirement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
