9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt year 2009-10. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised following main Grounds of Appeal :- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not upholding the AO's finding that the payment of Rs. 9,09,664/- for Mystery Audit was for acquisition of a property at Kerala and hence liable to be treated as Capital Expenditure." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the assessee's explanation that the payment of Rs. 9,09,664/- for carrying out Mystery Audit was to check quality of services provided in it's various restaurants, without giving the AO an opportunity in terms of Rule 46A of the IT Rules and without appreciating tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which represented the payment of fees to M/s Shaw Hotels & Consultancy Services for Mystery audit. The Assessing Officer in para 6.2 of the assessment order has noticed that the said fee was for an audit deliberating upon modalities of acquiring property in Kerala and, therefore, it was an expenditure of capital in nature. Thus he, disallowed such expenditure. 3. Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the said expenditure as having been incurred for acquiring a property in Kerala. Instead, it was explained that the said expense was incurred for Mystery audit of various Restaurants belonging to the assessee so as to check quality of services being provided therein. The CIT(A) has noted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t no fresh material or evidence was furnished to the CIT(A) other than what was before the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the CIT(A) has not violated the provisions of rule 46A of the Rules. According to the Ld. Representative, even in the past years such expenditure has been allowed as revenue expenditure and that in the current year assessment year, the Assessing Officer has based his disallowance on a complete misreading of the submissions put-forth by the assessee. We find that Revenue has not specified any material or evidence relied upon by the CIT(A) which was not before the Assessing Officer and, therefore, in our opinion, the objection of the Revenue in Ground of appeal no. 2, based on Rule 46 of the Rules, is quite misconceived ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Vah Magna Retail (P) Ltd, dated 10.04.2012, he held that the payments made to the banks for credit card services was outside the purview of deduction of tax u/s 194H and, therefore, the impugned sum could not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). 8. At the time of hearing, the Ld. DR has not assailed the above decision of CIT(A), on the basis of any decision contrary to that of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal followed by the CIT(A). Apart therefrom, the Ld. Representative for the respondent-assessee relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. JDS Apparels P. Ltd. [ 2015] 370 ITR 454 (Delhi) and the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
