TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tting aside the finding the issue is restored back to the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the same in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Disallowance u/s 14A - AR submitted assessee has made investment of share out of its fund in Mid 1990 and no dividend has been earned in the year - HELD THAT:- On a perusal of the assessment order, it is seen that the assessee has consistently made a claim that the investments have been from its own funds. Before the CIT(A), it has also been stated that these investment in shares were made in early 1990s out of its own funds. It has been argued that in the year under consideration, no dividend has been earned thereon which is established from page 19-20 which is an extract of the P L Account of the assessee - AR considering the request of the Revenue stated that he had no objection if the issue is verified. Accordingly in the light of the submissions of the parties and considering the material available on record and the judicial precedent cited, we set aside the issue back to the file to the CIT(A) with the direction to verify the claim of the assessee and allow necessary relief if so warranted on fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the computation of total income. By way of a note appended to the statement of total income it was claimed as a Revenue expenditure. The said claim was rejected by the AO. 3. Aggrieved by which the assessee came in appeal before the CIT(A who confirmed the addition made by way of a disallowance. 4. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 5. Ld. AR inviting attention to the written submission filed by the CIT(A) which are found reproduced in page 6 7 of the impugned order submitted that thought the two judgements relied upon by the assessee namely (i) Indo Rama Synthetics India Ltd. v CIT [2011] 333 ITR 18 (Del.) and (ii) CIT vs Priya Village Roadshows Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 594 (Del.) were cited, the CIT(A) while coming to a conclusion has failed to consider these. Carrying us through the decision relied upon it was his submission that the grounds deserve to be allowed. In the alternate it was his prayer that the issue may be remanded. The Ld. Sr. DR on the other hand relied upon the impugned order. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On a consideration of the same, it is seen that the claim of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... profession carried on by the assessee at any time during the F.Y.2009- 10. The claim of the assessee is rejected by the Assessing Officer. In view of the facts of the case I am in agreement with the Assessing Officer on the issue. There is no need to interfere with the order of assessment on this ground. Ground raised in appeal is dismissed. 6.2. It is seen that the assessee before the CIT(A) as per page 7 and 8 of the impugned order had made the following submissions on facts and law:- During the previous year the assessee company has written off a sum of ₹ 48.56 lacs representing cost of labour/other revenue expenses incurred on putting-up structure for installation of the spinning machines. The project was abandoned due to its non-viability and the expenses incurred has been written off to the Profit Loss A/c. While computing the taxable income, the same has been added back. However, vide note No. 12 appended below the Statement of Income filed, it has been claimed that the same is allowable as business expense since expenses incurred on various items of revenue nature. For this position, we rely on the following cases decided by the jurisdictional Delhi High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the assessment originally framed u/s 143(3J of the Act. (c) We may also mention that similar issue has been examined in the case of the present assessee i.e. DCM Shriram Industries Ltd wherein expenditure incurred on a new project was earlier charged to CWIP and on abandonment of the project the assessee claimed the expense deductible as revenue expense. The same has been allowed in appeals by the CIT(A) / ITAT and the said order has been accepted by the department. Relevant extract from the order is attached for your honour's ready reference. It is thus prayed that the assessee company be allowed deduction for amount of ₹ 48,56,088/- representing the cost of various revenue expenses incurred and written off to Profit Loss A/c during the previous year. While completing the assessment the Assessing Officer has not accepted the contention of the appellant holding that since the appellant company had itself debited the expenditure to Capital Work-in-progress in earlier years, the expenditure is of capital in nature. Your honour will please appreciate that debiting an expense to a particular head does not decide the character and allowability of the exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
