TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 1119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ .8,44,131/- claimed by the appellant being the cost incurred for developing WAP modules for its web portal, shown as capital work in progress written off in the previous year due to technological obsolesce, by holding the same as capital loss and the reasons assigned by him for doing so are wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of income tax Act, 1961, and Rules made thereunder. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing officer that the assessee has claimed deduction of ₹ .8,44,131/- in respect of capital work in progress written off . In response to Assessing officer s requisition to show cause as to why the said claim not be declined, it was subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, in his brief order, observed as follows: I have carefully examined the issue and uphold the decision made by the A.O. it is incomprehensible as to how the appellant has even claimed the expenditure as a revenue expenditure especially when it had itself been treating the said expenditure as capital expenditure and as capital work in progress. The claim is devoid of any merit. The stand of the AO is upheld and so is the disallowance. The ground is decided against the appellant. 5. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before us. 6. Having heard the rival contentions, and having perused the material on record, we find that the objections taken by the authorities below are indeed devoid of any legally sustainabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of ₹ .8,66,667/- claimed by the appellant being balance amount of amortizqations towards one time service charges paid for availability of business cetnre for a period of 33 months charged to profit and loss account during the previous year on the termination of the agreement and the reasons assigned by him for doing so are wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of Income tax Act, 1961, and Rules made thereunder. (b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the authorities below erred in observing that the rent paid in advance was not the liability of the year under consideration and as such the appellant has claimed expenses, whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by the AO. It is not understood how expenditure can be claimed on a deferred revenue basis especially when the expenditure was incurred in an earlier year although for a period of 33 months. The liability had to be claimed in total in the year when the same was incurred. The fact that the tax was deducted at source on the entire amount and claimed in the earlier year also indicate that the expenditure was to be claimed in the earlier year. The plea of the appellant is rejected and the stand of the AO approved. The ground is decided against the appellant. 10. Not satisfied with the stand so taken by the CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 11. Having heard the rival contentions and having perused the material on record, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
