TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal delay condoned, secondment costs disallowed for AY 2014-15 upheld, AO's decision deemed arbitrary.</h1> <h3>Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) -2 Versus KKM Management Centre Pvt. Ltd.</h3> The delay of 240 days in filing the appeal was condoned as the respondent did not oppose the application. Regarding the disallowance of secondment costs ... Secondment costs incurred by the respondent/assessee - no dispute raised that in the earlier AYs secondment costs were allowed - HELD THAT:- There was, to our minds, no rationale in the AO allowing 50% of the cost and disallowing the remaining costs; what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The approach of the AO bordered on whimsicality. While we are conscious that the principle of res judicata has no place in the Income Tax regime, the principle of consistency, which is equally weighty, has been applied by the court where circumstances are pari materia with the facts obtaining in the period in issue. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Issues involved: Condonation of delay in filing appeal, Secondment costs disallowanceCondonation of delay in filing appeal:- An application was filed seeking condonation of delay of 240 days in filing the appeal.- Respondent did not oppose the prayer for condonation of delay.- The delay was condoned and the application was disposed of.Secondment costs disallowance:- The appeal concerned Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.- Similar issue arose in a previous appeal concerning AY 2013-14, where the appeal was closed as no substantial question of law arose.- The Tribunal confirmed the findings of fact returned by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].- The impugned order highlighted the issue of deleting the addition of Rs. 7.16 crore made by the Assessing Officer but deleted by CIT(A).- The AO allowed only 50% of the expenditure related to secondment costs, which was deemed contrary and whimsical by the court.- The court emphasized the principle of consistency in similar circumstances and found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order.- It was concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, and the appeal was closed.Note: Separate judgment was not delivered by the judges.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
