New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (7) TMI 161 - ITAT DELHI

2016 (7) TMI 161 - ITAT DELHI - TMI - Disallowance on account of prior period expenses - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - Held that:- Bills were dated 1.4.2009 and the expenses were made in the Month of January & February, 2009. Assessee pleaded that since the assessee has received these bills during FY 2009-10 and made the payment subsequently and the AO has also not doubted the genuineness of expenses, therefore, these expenses are allowable. After going through the facts and circumstances 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

id could not be treated as capital expenditure, hence, we do not find any infirmity in the well reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue - Decided against revenue. - Addition by treating the expenditure as capital expenditure - advertisement and promotion expenses - Held that:- The assessee was the original holder of publishing rights of the blender magazine. As per the JV agreement with Dennis Publishing, the assessee was supposed to develop and promote the Blender magazine and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n. In view of the above, it was rightly held by the Ld. CIT(A) that disallowance of expenditure ignoring the income from selling of publishing right is not justifiable and addition was rightly deleted - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1992/Del/2014 - Dated:- 1-7-2016 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Department : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjnja, Sr. DR For The Assessee : N o ne ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The Revenue has filed the present appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. 2008-09 and thus the liability was incurred in A.Y. 2009-1O? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,10,300/-, made by the A.O. by treating the Legal and Professional Charges paid to M/s Consort Capital Pvt. Ltd. as Capital Expenditure, without appreciating the fact that the above expenditure was incurred in relation to the raising of private equity and thus was evidently a capital expenditure and claim of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 5. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or forgo any ground (s) of the appeal raised above at the time of the hearing. 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of Publishing of Magazines, trading in books / magazines and filed its return of income declaring a loss of ₹ 1,47,99,406/- on 27.9.2010 which .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ertisement and publicity expenses thus totaling to ₹ 17,66,407/- on the ground that this expenses does not relate to the year under consideration and added back to the total income of the assessee company. 2.1 Secondly, an expenditure of ₹ 1,10,300/- has also been disallowed being capital in nature and added back to the income of the assessee. The Assessee has incurred these expenses on account legal and professional charges paid to M/s Consort Capital Pvt. Ltd. as upfront fees in ra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

UTV News Limited totaling to ₹ 2,16,78,914/-. According to the Assessee these expenses were incurred on Advt. and creation of (Blender) magazine. These expenses are made as per the Joint Venture arrangement entered into on 12.2.2009 between M/s Dennis Publishing International ltd. and the Assessee Company. The assessee has given its explanation by way of reply to the AO vide letter dated 12.10.2012 explaining the nature of expenses, but the AO did not agree with the reasons mentioned by th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the appeal filed by the Assessee. 3. Now the Revenue is aggrieved against the impugned order and filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal. 5. None Appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, notice by RPAD was issued to the assessee for 20.6.2016 and in response to the same, neither the assessee nor its Authorized Representative/Counsel appeared and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t the Ld. First Appellate Authority has deleted the addition of ₹ 17,66,407/- made by the AO on account of prior period expenses because the Bills were dated 1.4.2009 and the expenses were made in the Month of January & February, 2009. Before the First Ld. Appellate Authority assessee pleaded that since the assessee has received these bills during the relevant assessment year and made the payment subsequently and the AO has also not doubted the genuineness of expenses. Therefore, these .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssee has received the Bills during the relevant assessment year and making the payment subsequently. Keeping in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kedar Nath (Supra), the Ld. First Appellate Authority has rightly deleted the addition in dispute, hence, there is no need to interfere in the well reasoned finding given by the ld. First Appellate Authority, therefore, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue involved in ground no. 1 and decide the sam .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is in nature of commission paid and cannot be treated as capital expenditure at par with the expenditure incurred during initial capital raised. In the background of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the commission paid could not be treated as capital expenditure, hence, we do not find any infirmity in the well reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue, therefore, we uphold the same and decide the ground no. 2 in favour of the As .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version