TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and we therefore do not find any reason to deviate from the findings of Ld. CIT(A)- decided against revenue - MA No. 170/M/2018 - - - Dated:- 23-8-2018 - SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Jitendra Jain, A.R. For The Revenue : Shri Ram Ticoori, D.R. ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: Vide this application, the assessee seeks the rectification of the order dated 08.11.2017 passed in ITA No.4316/M/2014. 2. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the Revenue in its appeal raised ground Nos.3 4 as regards expenses on implementing the Project Disha and Project Eagle which were treated by the Ld. CIT(A) as revenue in nature while the same w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stake within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act which should be rectified and accordingly we rectify the same in the following paras. 5. The ground No.4 is reproduced below: 4. Whether on the facts circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CITA) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to treat the expenditure on account of implementing Project Eagle as revenue expenditure without appreciating the fact that implementation of the said project has enduring benefit to the assessee and deserves to be treated as capital expenditure. 6. The facts in brief are that the assessee incurred ₹ 3,90,00,000/- under the head legal and professional fees for a new initiative project called EAGLE (Expansion and Aggr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the existing business and there was no material to hold that it amounted to a new or fresh venture. The further circumstance that the agreement pertained to a product already in the line of the assessee's established business and not to a new product indicates that what was stipulated was an improvement in the operations of the existing business and its efficiency and, profitability not removed from the area of the day-to-day business of the assessee's established enterprise. In view of the above decision and the ratio laid down in the case of Indo Raina Synthetics India Ltd, vs. CIT (333 ITR 18) (Delhi); CIT v. Prczga Tools Ltd. (157 ITR 282) (AP); CIT vs. Crompton Engineering Co. Ltd. (242 ITR 317) (Mad); CIT v. JCT Elec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
