TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (5) TMI 15
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's common order dated 03.10.2008 passed in ITA No. 2867/Del/2007 and 2868/Del/2007 respectively. Notice was issued by this Court on 10.08.2009 on this appeal only on two issues. The first issue is with regard to the disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue was of the view that the assessee had failed to attribute any head office expenses to the foreign branches of the assessee company and that the Assessing Officer has correctly estimated an amount of Rs 1.5 crores relating to the Assessment Year 2003-04 and Rs 1 crore relating to the Assessment Year 2004-05 as being the expenditure attributable to the foreign projects and consequently made an addition of Rs 30 lakh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unts of the assessee. Nor had the Assessing Officer pointed out any defect with regard to the computation of the profits of the foreign projects which were eligible under Section 80 HHB. Consequently, the Tribunal took the view that the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the said allowance made by the Assessing Officer was correct. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer had merely deleted the disallowance on the basis of presumption without bringing any material on record. The Tribunal, therefore, confirmed the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and are of the view that a part of the head office expenses, on principle, are to be attribute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her the allocation made by the assessee company in respect of the common expenditures was appropriate and fair and as to whether the entire common expenditure had been allocated. Consequently, the Special Auditor observed that this aspect needed detailed examination. 6. Pursuant to the said remarks of the Special Auditor, the Assessing Officer issued a questionnaire to the assessee to furnish details with regard to the common expenses and the actual allocation of such common expenses alongwith a detailed working thereof. In response to the said questionnaire, the assessee company submitted their letter dated 22.11.2006 wherein they pointed out that the commercial building situated at 17/18 Nehru Place, New Delhi was not owned by the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10 lakhs was made. 8. The Tribunal returned the finding on this aspect of the matter in para 23 of the impugned order. The finding is as under: "We have considered the rival submission. It is noticed that the AO has not brought on record any evidence to show that any portion of the premises as occupied by the assessee is being used by any other company or companies. It is further noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has taken into consideration the fact that the AO has not disputed the fact that the other companies operating from the said premises are not occupying the leased area and having their own separate arrangement with the business centre. It is further noticed that the disallowance as made by the AO is only on presumptions and on an a....