TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owner does not arise. It is not case of the assessee that it has paid rent to M/s. DRS Industries Ltd., in pursuance of an agreement and in turn M/s. DRS Industries Ltd., has paid rent to land lord. In absence of any agreement between the appellant and land lord, the AO has rightly disallowed rent expenses debited into the profit and loss account. CIT(A), after considering relevant facts has rightly sustained additions made by the AO and thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and reject grounds taken by the assessee. Disallowance of advertisement expenses paid - AO has disallowed advertisement expenses incurred by the assessee, on the ground that there is no valid agreement between the assessee and M/s. DRS Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aining the rent paid to M/s. DRS Industries hy the Appellant contrary to the acceptance of the Agreement dated 30.06.2010. 3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to note that as per clause 7 of Agreement Dt. 30.06.2010 the Appellant has to pay the rent and the same was paid accordingly. 4. The CIT (Appeals) failed to consider Form 16A for TDS. 5. The Appellant has brought the said rent amount of Rs.32,40,000/under the heading OTHER EXPENSES which reflects in NOTE No. 19 of the Income Tax Return. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to note that once payment accepted and processed the same cannot be questioned on later period. There is no dispute with the genuine transactions. On the other hand the department has accepted the payment mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,16,664]. 12. The CIT (Appeals) failed to note that once the reimbursement of Rs.22,16,664/- is accepted under the heading OTHER INCOME accordingly, the entire expenses incurred towards advertisement has to be accepted. 13. The CIT (Appeals) cannot accept the Agreement dated 30.06.2010 in piecemeal and the same has to be accepted entirely. 14. The CIT (Appeals) failed to note that the Agreement is accepted as valid by the same Assessing Officer in the case of M/ s.DRS Industries and same cannot be negated in the case of the Appellant. 15. The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/ arguments at the time of hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee company is engaged in the busi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o an agreement with M/s. DRS Industries Ltd for purchase of Skoda cars dealership. As per said agreement between the assessee and M/s. DRS Industries Ltd., from the date of agreement i.e., 30.06.2010, within three months the dealership should be transferred to Miracle Cars India Pvt Ltd., i.e, appellant. Since, the assessee had entered into an agreement for purchase of dealership, it has carried out business of spares sales and services of cars and has paid rent to land owner amounting to Rs. 32,40,000/-. The AO has disallowed rent paid to M/s. DRS Industries Ltd., on the ground that the agreement is between land owner and M/s. DRS Industries Ltd., and further the dealership was also in the name of M/s. DRS Industries Ltd., and thus, the qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he undisputed facts are that the agreement between the assessee and M/s. DRS Industries Ltd., dated 30.06.2010 did not materialize and consequently, the dealership of Skoda cars sales services has not been transferred to the assessee. Further, the rent agreement in respect of premises where the business was carried out by M/s. DRS Industries Ltd., was also in the name of M/s. DRS Industries Ltd., and the land lord. Therefore, the question of assessee making rent payment directly to land owner does not arise. It is not case of the assessee that it has paid rent to M/s. DRS Industries Ltd., in pursuance of an agreement and in turn M/s. DRS Industries Ltd., has paid rent to land lord. In absence of any agreement between the appellant and lan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt expenses. The ld. CIT(A) on appeal, allowed relief to the extent of reimbursement got from M/s. DRS Industries Ltd., and balance amount has been sustained. 9. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee rested his arguments on the basis of agreement between the appellant and M/s. DRS Industries Ltd., and argued that the assessee has incurred advertisement expenses, because it was supposed to takeover dealership business from M/s. DRS Industries Ltd. We find that there is no valid agreement between the appellant and M/s. DRS Industries Ltd., and further the so called agreement is not acted upon, and as claimed by the assessee fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
