TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of section 263, the CIT has rightly taken up the case for revision u/s 263. The Ld.AR did not bring any judgement or decision in support of his argument. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT and the same is upheld. The assessee’s appeal on this ground is dismissed. Allowance of revenue expenditure - Held that:- The assessee is not enjoying exemption u/s 11 & 12. Hence the voluntary contribution received by the assessee is taxable income u/s 2(24)(iia) and only the revenue expenditure is allowable deduction. In the instant case, the AO allowed the entire payments as revenue expenditure without verifying the nature of expenditure which included the capital payments. Since the capital expenditure is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam.' Hence, the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad, is not maintainable and maykindly be cancelled as voidab-initio. - (iii) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad, is also not justified in invoking the provisions U/s.263 of the I.T. Act, as the order passed by the Assessing Authority is not erroneous and not prejudicial to the Revenue - Hence, the Appellant Trust prays the Honourable Bench, to kindly cancel the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad, - (iv) For these and other grounds that maybe urged at the time of Appeal hearing, the Appellant 'prays the Hon'ble LT.A.T. V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), the CIT has taken up the case for revision u/s 263 and observed that out of the total payments allowed by the AO, a sum of ₹ 75,83,315/- was capital expenditure which is not allowable from the gross receipts and accordingly found the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Hence, the CIT has set aside the assessment order of the AO passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 28.02.2014 and directed the AO to redo the assessment after verifying the details. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR argued that the assessment in this case was completed by AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and assessed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is no error in the order passed by the CIT(E) u/s 263 and no interference is called for. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 by an order dated 28.02.2014 for the A.Y 2008-09 and for the A.Y.2010-11 u/s 143(3). In the orders passed the AO has denied the exemption u/s 11 and 12 for assessee s failure to produce evidences granting registration u/s 12A of I.T.Act. The assessee had received total receipts of ₹ 2,07,26,908 and made the payments of ₹ 1,33,66,150/-. The AO has allowed the entire payments without examining the nature of expenditure for both the years. There was no indication in the assessment order that the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. As per the assessment order from the gross receipts the assessing officer allowed entire payments as revenue expenditure. The AO has allowed the entire payments without verifying nature of expenditure. During the revision proceedings, the CIT found that the assessee had made payments for capital expenditure and claimed the same as revenue expenditure which was an error and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Ld.AR did not place any evidence to establish that the payment was not incurred for capital purpose. The assessment is completed treating the assessee as AOP and taxable entity. The assessee is not enjoying exemption u/s 11 12. Hence the voluntary contribution r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
