TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ME COURT ] and Times Business Solution Ltd. [ 2013 (4) TMI 370 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] Nature of expenses - training expenses treated as a third kind of expense, i.e., deferred revenue expenditure - Tribunal holds that u/s 37 the entire expenditure would have to be allowed - HELD THAT:- According to us, the view taken by the Tribunal is correct. Also see CIT(A) vs. Samsung India Electronic Limited [ 2013 (7) TMI 365 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] has taken the same view. Revenue appeal dismissed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA For the Appellant Through: Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Pratyaksh Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and Ms Deeksha Gupta, Adv. For the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Eicher Motors Ltd. [EML], on acquisition of its commercial vehicle division in a scheme of demerger, was not permissible as per the provisions of Sections 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, Act ]. 4. Mr Ruchir Bhatia, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, does not dispute the fact that the subject debts have become bad. 4.1 It is also not disputed that the predecessor-in-interest i.e., EML had offered for imposition of tax the subject debts at a relevant point in time. 5. Therefore, the only issue which arose for consideration before the statutory authorities was as to whether the successor-in-interest i.e., the respondent/assessee, could hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s which resulted in skill development of the technicians. 5.2 Consequently, the AO allowed as deduction only a part of the expense amounting to Rs. 1,15,22,490/- in the AY in issue, i.e., 2011-12. The remaining amount, i.e., Rs. 2,30,44,980/- was disallowed in the said AY. 5.3 However, with regard to the remaining amount, a further direction was issued, which was, that deduction qua the same would be allowed in the subsequent AYs. 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, CIT(A) ], in an appeal preferred by the respondent/assessee, reversed this view, broadly on the ground that the Act did not recognize the concept of deferred revenue expenditure. 6.1 This view was sustained by the Tribunal. 7. The Tribunal hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
