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

2016 (9) TMI 59 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

2016 (9) TMI 59 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - [2016] 386 ITR 267 - Allowability of prior period expenses - Held that:- A finding of fact has been recorded by the appellate authorities that approval for payment of the said expenditure was given during the year under appeal therefore the liability crystallised during the year and similar method was being regularly followed by the assessee consistently and when there is a finding recorded by the appellate authorities that the expenditure crystallised du .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rprise and that a finding of fact has been recorded that the contribution made to the State Renewal fund is solely for the purposes of the welfare and benefit of the employees. In our view, it is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of business and expenditure of this nature being for business expediency is certainly allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. In our view any normal expenditure for the welfare and benefit of the employees is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Instant appeal is directed against the order dated July 17, 2015 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ITAT) in I. T. A. No. 893/JP/2012. It relates to assessment year 2009-10. 2. The brief facts which can be noticed are that the respondent is a corporation established by the Government of Rajasthan and is engaged in procurement, processing and trading of seeds, tractor and agriculture implements. The assessee claims that the accounts are audited. During the course of assessme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rlier assessment years and is not required to be allowed, during the previous year relevant to the year under assessment. (ii) the Group Gratuity Scheme was not approved by the Commissioner which was mandatory and the same being not approved, the deduction under section 36(1)(v) was not allowable. (iii) State Renewal Fund is not an allowable expenditure within the provisions of section 37(1). 4. The assessee assailed the same before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who allowed al .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cheme was not approved by the Commissioner and it was man datory for a claim to be deductible under section 36(1)(v) to get it approved and once the Gratuity Insurance Scheme was not approved the claim was rightly disallowed. (iii) In so far as the claim of contribution to the State Renewal Fund is concerned he contended that the assessee could not prove the same to be allowable under section 37(1) and thus the assessee having not been able to prove the expenditure the Tribunal erred in allowing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erned a finding of fact has been recorded by the appellate authorities that approval for payment of the said expenditure was given during the year under appeal therefore the liability crystallised during the year and similar method was being regularly followed by the assessee consistently and when there is a finding recorded by the appellate authorities that the expenditure crystallised during the year, was written in the books this year and on year to year basis was claimed in the same manner a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

reject the same. The same having not been done for the last more than almost 25 years, the assessee could not have been blamed for the same. There is no denial by the Assessing Officer that application for approval has not been filed by the assessee on March 31, 1981. Even the Assessing Officer admits that the application for approval was submitted on March 31, 1981 and both the appellate authorities have come to a definite finding of fact that once an application has been moved for approval an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o the said conclusion. Needless to mention that a finding has been given by the Tribunal that the amounts are being disallowed by the learned Assessing Officer from year to year at least from the assessment year 1996-97 i.e. almost 20 years but is being allowed regularly in appeal therefore, for this reason also we reject the claim of the Revenue. The Assessing Officer ought not to have made a repeated addition merely for this purpose and a litigation of this nature ought not to have come before .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mounts are disallowed and to incur wasteful public money either way as at least the respondent has also to incur public money to defend its case being a Government of Rajasthan Undertaking in filing repetitive appeals though succeeding year after year. Merely because the tax effect is more than what is prescribed in the Circulars be it old or the latest being in December 2015 is no ground to file such appeals, we though were inclined to levy cost on the Revenue but stopped ourselves in doing the .....

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