TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re not produced in full for verification and still, he partly confirmed the disallowance to the extent of ₹ 1 Lac out of ₹ 5 Lacs disallowed by the AO. In view of these findings of CIT (A) as noted above, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts of the present case, no disallowance is justified and hence, we delete this disallowance. Ground No. 4 is allowed. Disallowance of cost of super structure - HELD THAT:- For a building constructed for letting out, there is no provision in the act to allow the cost of construction as revenue expenditure. Since, major portion of the building in the present case is already let out, this building is a letout building and not business building. Hence, in our considered opinion, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri V. Chandrasekar, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri S. Tamil Selvam, JCIT DR ORDER PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against the order of learned CIT (A) III Bangalore dated 31.10.2012 for A. Y. 2007 08. 2. In course of hearing, learned AR of the assessee submitted that Synopsys is already filed and this appeal may be decided by considering the same. Learned DR of the revenue supported the order of CIT (A). 3. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that Ground No. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are general and no separate adjudication is called for about these two grounds. As per Ground No. 3, the grievance of the assessee is about confirming of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce is on account of petty payments to drivers etc. and hence, this disallowance should be deleted. We find that in Para 8.1 of his order, it is observed by CIT (A) that the AO was not justified in making this disallowance on estimate basis. He has also observed that the expenses are broadly covered by the contract terms. He also observed that the AO should have highlighted some anomalies in the claim. Thereafter he observes that the AO notes in general terms in the remand report that bills/vouchers were not produced in full for verification and still, he partly confirmed the disallowance to the extent of ₹ 1 Lac out of ₹ 5 Lacs disallowed by the AO. In view of these findings of CIT (A) as noted above, we are of the considered op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emolishing the old building but in the present case, this is not the case of the assessee that the building was constructed after demolishing the old building. Hence, in our opinion, this judgment is not applicable in the present case. 6. In the case of CIT vs. TVS Lean Logistics Private Limited (Supra), these facts are similar that building was constructed on leasehold land as in the present case but there is a vital difference in facts of this case and the present case. In the present case, out of total area of Square Feet, only 14,300 Square Feet is used for business and major portion of 29,600 Square Feet square feet is let out. Hence, in the present case, a small portion of a let-out house property is used for business whereas in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e from house property and the AO disallowed ₹ 6 lacs so claimed by the assessee and there is no separate disallowance of ₹ 480,000/-. The contention that there is double disallowance is not correct because deduction is very much claimed in the computation available on page 54 of the paper book and it is disallowed by the AO by observing that for computing income under the head house property, deduction on account of ground rent is not allowable. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT (A) on this issue. Accordingly, Ground No. 6 is also rejected. 7. As per Ground No. 7, the grievance of the assessee is about confirming of the disallowance of ₹ 10,21,444/- made by the AO towards the assessee s claim for amortization of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
