TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowance of expenditure on Legal fees of ₹ 20,00,000/- by treating it as contingent liability and rejecting the claim of the appellant company that the said expenditure was in fact an accrued liability for the year under consideration. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the disallowance of expenditure on other fees of ₹ 6,76,036/- by treating it as contingent liability and rejecting the claim of the appellant company that the said expenditure was in fact an accrued liability for the year under consideration. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in referring the case back to the Assessing Officer on disallowance of expend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relating to some provisions which are not allowable ie Software licenses, consultancy charges, repairs to furniture and expenditure u/s 14A of the Act. Aggrieved with the same, the matter travelled to CIT (A) and the CIT (A) confirmed the said additions as per the reasons given in the impugned order. The ground wise adjudication is given in the following paragraphs. 4. Ground no.1 2 relates to the allowability of claim expenditure on account of legal fee of ₹ 20,00,000/- and other fee of ₹ 6,76,036/-, when they are mere provisions. The assessee created the above provisions and claimed as allowable expenditure. It was mentioned that the assessee consistently creates such provisions and add them back at the end of the year a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , ground no.1 2 are dismissed. 5. Regarding grounds no. 3, 4 5, relating to Software license and consultancy charges, both the parties have agreed to the decision that these issues have to be set aside to the files of the AO for adjudication of the issue afresh after considering the decision in the case of Amway India Enterprises Ltd vs. DCIT (111 ITD 112). Considering the admitted position and concurrence of the parties for remanding, we proceed to refer these grounds to AO s files. AO is directed to take an appropriate action by way of fresh adjudication in this matters and decide the issues afresh after considering the cited and available judgments on the issues. Ao shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Mfg. Co. Ltd (supra). He was also critical of the manner in which Ld CIT (A) confirmed the order of the AO with out following the said judgment. In this regard Ld Counsel mentioned that the issue may have to be sent back to the files of AO for fresh adjudication and deciding the issue afresh on the quantum of disallowance adopting the reasonable basis as held again by the same judgment for the assessment year prior to AY 2008-2009. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the records and the cited judgment in the case of Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd (supra). Considering the factual matrix of the case as well as the prayer of the Ld Counsel for remanding, we proceed to set aside the ground 2 raised by the assessee for fresh adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
