TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - HELD THAT:- We have noted that out of total claim CIT(A) has already allowed the claim of Audit Fees, Tax Audit Fees and Director s Fees and remaining was not allowed. The remaining expenditure consist Legal and Consultation Fees Travelling and Conveyance fees, Rates Taxes, Bank Commission and Fees for other services. Considering the nature of expenses incurred by assessee as narrated above all the expenses are necessary for corporate entity, therefore, all the expenses are allowed - I.T.A. No.6695/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 24-7-2019 - SHRI PAWAN SINGH AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, JJ. Appellant by : Ms. Niti Agarwal (AR) Respondent by : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (DR) ORDER PAW ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the interest income. 5. On the facts and circumstances the appellant prays that the sum of ₹ 1,14,40,967/- being the interest payment may be allowed as deduction against the interest of ₹ 72,73,294/- treated as the income chargeable to tax under the head income from other sources. 6. Without prejudice to ground 1 to 5 the appellant prays that if the sum of ₹ 72,73,294/- is taxed under the head income from other sources and if deduction of interest payment is not allowed to be set off against the said income then the sum of ₹ 1,14,40,967/- may be added to the capital work in progress as the appellant has reduced the said amount while computing the capital work in progress. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the assessee has not offered the income for taxation but reduced the same from capital workin- progress. The assessee was asked to explain as to why the income should not be treated as Income from Other Sources . The assessee filed its reply dated 09.02.2015. In the reply, the assessee stated that the assessee setting up infrastructure facility being construction of Toll Road in the state of Assam and Meghalaya. The promoters of company have introduced money by way of share capital and also obtain credit facility in the bank from the banks and Institutions. The funds are exclusively meant for setting up infrastructure facility. The lender disbursed the funds at the specified interval and the said fund are required to be used for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. We have heard the submission of ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee and ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue and perused the material available on record. At the outset of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that Ground No.1 to 3 are covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Tribunal in assessee s own case for Assessment Year 2011-12 wherein similar interest income was treated as Income from Other Sources . However, on appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee was granted relief in ITA No. 3667/Mum/2016 dated 12.09.2018. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue after going through the contents of the decision of Tribunal dated 12.09.2018 in assessee s own case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10,10,740/-. The ld. AR of the assessee furnished the written submission. In the written submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that in appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 similar ground of appeal was raised as the same were not adjudicated by ld. CIT(A), the Tribunal remanded the same to the file of ld. CIT(A). However, for the year under consideration, the assessee raised additional ground of appeal before ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) allowed expenses incurred on Director s Fees of ₹ 1,45,000/-, Audit Fees of ₹ 1,10,300/- and Tax Audit Fees of ₹ 82,725/- and remaining expenses aggregating of ₹ 6,72,715/- was not allowed. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee-company was set up only to build, op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter considering the contention of the assessee admitted the additional claim in the form of grounds of appeal and allowed ₹ 1,45,000/- of Director s Fees, 1.10,000/- Audit Fees and ₹ 82,725/- on account of Tax Audit Fees holding that these expenses are required to maintain the corporate status of the assessee and the remaining expenditure was not relating to the corporate status was not allowed. The alternative and without prejudice ground for adding the sum of/remaining expenses to the capital work-in-progress was not allowed by ld. CIT(A) holding that the expenses are revenue expenditure and has no connection that capital work-in-progress. 11. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee in her written submission as we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
