TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oyees of Department of Urban Estate s. - AO disallowed the said expenditure holding that the employees to whom the salary was paid were not employees of the assessee, rather, those were the employees of the Department of Urban Estates - HELD THAT:- The employees of the Department of Estates have been working owing to the reasons of transfer of functions overtaken by the HUDA. Since these employees are certainly working for HUDA fully and wholly it cannot be said that the salaries paid to the employees is not for business purpose. In the absence of diversion of employees from Department of Estates, HUDA would have to hire outside manpower and also require to pay them accordingly. Keeping in view the functions performed by the employees for H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar instance sales tax) is undisputedly eligible for deduction. There is neither any factual nor legal in congruency. By no stretch of imagination the sales tax paid can be treated as capital expenditure in the facts of this case. Hence we decline to interfere in the well reasoned order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition. - ITA No. 890/CHD/2019 - - - Dated:- 21-10-2020 - N. K. Saini, Vice President And Sanjay Garg, Member (J) For the Appellant : A. K. Jindal, CA For the Respondents : C. Chandrakanta, CA ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Member (J) 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 18.03.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Panchkula [hereinafter referred to as & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aspect that the sale tax was imposed on cost of supply of materials against cost to the contractor relating to both the completed and the uncompleted sectors coupled with the facts that the assessee did not furnish details of sale tax paid on account of supply of material to contractors? 5. It is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set-aside and that of Assessing Officer be restored. 6. The appellant craves leave toad or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that all the grounds/issues raised by the Department are duly covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the own case of the assessee for earlier assessment years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case laws in this respect. This issue is, thus, squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal vide common order dated 6.2.2018 (supra). This ground of the Revenue, therefore, stands dismissed. 7. Ground No. 2: Ground No. 2 is regarding the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of administrative expenses paid as salary etc. to the employees of Department of Urban Estates. The Assessing Officer disallowed the said expenditure holding that the employees to whom the salary was paid were not employees of the assessee, rather, those were the employees of the Department of Urban Estates. The Assessing Officer held that since the Department of Urban Estates was a separate department of the State Government, therefore, there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the peculiarities of the facts emerging out of the issue of drafting of employees of Department of Estates to work for HUDA. The addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby directed to be deleted. 10. The Ld. DR has not brought to our knowledge any distinguishing facts or case laws in this respect. 11. The issue, thus, is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal dated 6.2.2018 (supra). This ground of the Revenue, is accordingly dismissed. 12. Ground No. 3: The issue involved in ground No. 3 is as to whether the expenditure on account of payment to Delhi Metro Corporation on account of expansion of metro services from Delhi to Gurgaon was an allowable expenditure made wholly and exclusively for the business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal dated 6.2.2018 (supra). The ground of appeal raised by the Revenue, thus, stands dismissed. 16. Ground No. 4 : The issue raised vide ground No. 4 is regarding disallowance of expenditure on account of payment of sale tax. 17. Both the Ld. representatives of the parties have submitted that this issue is also covered by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal vide common order dated 6.2.2018 (supra), wherein, the Tribunal in the identical issue raised in earlier years has given following findings:- Para 161. Having gone through the facts we are really surprised by the action of the Assessing Officer and also by the decision of the authorities referring this issue for fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
