9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2010-11 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai, [CIT(A)], Appeal No.CIT(A)-15/IT-20/12-13 dated 10/03/2015 qua confirmation of disallowances of expenditure for Rs. 192.30 Lacs. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3), Mumb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same in terms of Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 on the basis of material available on record and after hearing Ld. Departmental Representative, Shri Arun Kumar Singh Chaudhary who has justified the stand of lower authorities in making impugned additions / disallowances. 3. The fact on record reveals that the assessee being resident corporate entity was engaged in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein Ld. CIT(A), after due consideration of factual matrix, confirmed the stand of Ld. AO by observing as under:- 3.8 On these facts, I find that the appellant though have rightly considered all these expenses incurred for the process of set up of unit Hyderabad, New Delhi as preoperative expenses in their books of accounts, but wrongly claimed in toto in P& L A/c in A.Y.10-11, the subject m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve expenses incurred by pre-existing unit then, after amalgamation being not in existence any more after that year i.e. starting of A.Y. 2010-11, cannot be given effect to and thus will not be deductible. Hence the appellant have tried to debit such pre-operative expenses under the u/s 37 as business revenue expenses in this last year of business of pre-existing entity, which is incidentally first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration, we find nothing on record which controvert the findings of both the lower authorities. The pre-operative expenditure could not be allowed to the assessee since it has been noted that the business was not set up by the assessee during impugned AY. Therefore, we find nothing perverse in the findings of lower authorities. 6. The appeal stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
