TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1000X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... system, sales tax administration – sales, sales tax administration – purchases, maintaining capital work in progress, forex payable and leased assets etc. In view of the said facts and circumstances, it is quite clear that it is revenue expenditure and the case of the assessee is fairly covered by the law settled in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Raychem RPG Ltd. [2011 (7) TMI 953 - Bombay High Court ] - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance u/s.14A to the extent of 10% of the total exempted income - Held that:- From the facts and figures mentioned above, it noticed that own fund is more than the investment, therefore in the said circumstances no expenditure is required to be deducted in view of the law settled in Hon’ble Bombay Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO of not granting a deduction of ₹ 1,61,500/- towards refurnishing inspite of directions of Honorable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in this respect and presuming that the ground is not pressed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 29.10.2002 declaring total income to the tune of ₹ 32,33,45,800/-. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short the Act ) on 24.03.2005 at the total income of ₹ 33,23,24,763/-. The Hon ble ITAT, Mumbai in their order dated 02.01.2013 in ITA No.2902/Mum/2007 has set aside the following issues to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith respect to the TDS and Works Contract Tax System, Security Deposit Management System, Excel Vouchers upload systems, interface of auto-booking of excise / CENVAT to BayMAP system, sales tax administration sales, sales tax administration purchases, maintaining capital work in progress, forex payable and leased assets etc. it is also argued that the Assessing Officer has wrongly applied the law whereas the designing and development of software was not an enduring benefit to the company, hence, it is revenue in nature and also relied upon the law settled in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Raychem RPG Ltd. [2012] 346 ITR 138 Hon ble Bombay High Court and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. [2012] 346 ITR 329 Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nate plea to treat the consultancy charges to the tune of ₹ 27,86,230/-, if any, capital in nature and to allow the depreciation thereon but the said expenditure has already been treated as revenue expenditure, therefore, this plea has no force in the eyes of law, hence there is no need to decide the alternate plea. ISSUE NO.2:- 6. Under this issue the assessee has challenged the confirmation of the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act to the extent of 10% of the total exempted income. The learned representative of the assessee has argued that as against the investment of ₹ 1,69,27,000/-, the assessee s own fund was ₹ 81 crores, therefore in the said circumstances the investment to earn the exempt income was required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 81 crores. The balance sheet of the assessee is on the file which lies at page 23 to 36 of the paper book and speaks that the assessee s own fund is more than the investment. However, in this regard the details have also been given to the Assessing Officer by virtue of letter dated 13.12.2004. The investment in shares has been mentioned below:- 2,87,350 Equity shares of Bayer Diagnostics India Limited (Valued in the Balance Sheet at ₹ 2,53,29,903) 10,44,240 Units of Unit 64 issued by UTI (Valued in the Balance Sheet at ₹ 1,69,27,217) In respect of Investment in Bayer Diagnostics Limited, we want to state that such investment was on account of sale consideration for sale of division in the form of shares, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... UE NO.3 8. Under this issue the assessee has challenged the confirmation of the action of the Assessing Officer for not granting a deduction of ₹ 1,61,500/- towards refurnishing inspite of directions of Hon ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. The Assessing Officer presumed that this ground has not been pressed. But it is not so. This ground is required to be adjudicated. In the said circumstances, it is directed that the Assessing Officer must comply with the directions issued in ITA No.2902/Mum/2007 dated 02.01.2013 and to decide the issue afresh accordingly by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. 9. In the result the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
