TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnment and corporate responsibility was stated to be related to the specific scheme formulated by the state government for NTR Sujala Pathakam providing 20 ltrs of water to surrounding areas, thus, claimed the same as business expenditure. Claim of the assessee in respect of purchase of water from the state government needs to be verified in the light of the claim made in the return of income and the actual expenditure incurred. Similarly, in the explanation, the assessee stated that Andhra Pradesh Water Resources Development Corporation was authorized to pass resolution authorizing the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation to levy and collect the industrial water rates as fixed by the government from time to time. Whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wada dated 25.06.2020 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16. 2. All the grounds of appeal are related to the validity of order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act'). In this case, for the A.Y. 2015-16, assessment was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) on total income of ₹ 765,36,27,612/- and the taxable income resulted in Nil after set off of brought forward losses to the extent of total income. Subsequently, the Ld. Pr. CIT has taken the case for revision u/s. 263 for assessee's claim with regard to ₹ 37,46,74,242/- paid in respect of royalty to the State Government which is not allowable deduction as per section 40(1)(iib) of the Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l responsibility, the assessee submitted the detailed reply stating that the assessee had incurred the corporate social responsibility expenditure which was business expenditure in RTPP Stage-1 (O M) as amounts were spent under NTR Sujala Pathakam for providing drinking water to the surrounding villages, therefore, argued that there is no error in the assessment order passed u/s. 143, hence requested to drop the proceedings. After having heard the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. Pr. CIT observed that the assessee has claimed the expenditure under royalty to others and under the corporate social responsibility in the return of income and the AO neither verified the issues nor brought the information on records. Therefore, viewed that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to uphold the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In the instant case there is no dispute that as per the return of income filed, the assessee made the claim under royalty payment to others. Similarly, expenditure was also claimed under Corporate Social Responsibility. Royalty payment to others was stated to be in respect of industrial water purchased by the assessee from the state government and corporate responsibility was stated to be related to the specific scheme formulated by the state government for NTR Sujala Pathakam providing 20 ltrs of water to surrounding areas, thus, claimed the same as business expenditure. The claim of the assessee in respect of purchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
