9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Viswanathan, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT ORDER PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 11, Chennai dated 14.11.2017 relevant to the assessment year 2009-10. The only effective ground raised in the appeal of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee as well as facts of the case, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By relying on the decision in the case of CIT v. L.G. Electronic (India) Ltd. 282 ITR 545 (Delhi), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer disallowed the assessee's claim of ROC fees. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the ROC fees paid for increase in authorized share capital of a company is a capital expenditure in nature and hence cannot be allowed as an allowable deduction. 6.1 In the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT 225 ITR 792 as well as in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Hon'ble Delhi High Court has affirmed the same. 6.3 As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the ROC fees paid for increase in authorized share capital of a company is a capital expenditure in nature and hence cannot be allowed as an allowable deduction. Thus, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
