TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 816
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome-tax Act, 1961. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by the CIT (A) vide its order dated 17.02.2012. Now, the assessee is before us by taking the following grounds of appeal :- "1) The order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax - (Appeals) -IX, New Delhi is bad in law, wrong on the facts and against the principles of natural justice. 2) a.) The Ld CIT - (A) has erred in confirming disallowance Rs.50,000/- paid to Delhi Stock Exchange, during the Financial Year 2007-08, stating it to be related to earlier years. b.) The said payment was made by the appellant company to Delhi Stock Exchange in financial year 2007-08 as the liability to make the payment was crystalised....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing charges to Airport Authority of India are in the nature of rent and hence, assessee airline would be liable to deduct tax at source under section 194I and not 194C of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify or forego any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing." 3. Ground Nos.1 & 4 are general in nature. These were also not pressed during the hearing, hence dismissed. 4. In the ground no.2(a) & (b), the issue involved is confirming the addition of Rs.50,000/- paid to the Delhi Stock Exchange during the financial year relevant to Assessment Year under consideration. 5. During the year, assessee company made a payment of Rs.60,000/- to the Delhi Stock Exchange. Assessing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on compliance for the period from 31.3.2002 till 31.3.2007 as per Annexure attached thereto. In view of the above, the appellant was further required to explain as to when was the request for delisting / restoration made. In response the appellant filed a copy of letter dated 17.2.2002 addressed to the DSE requesting for delisting of securities. Ongoing through the said letter, it is seen that the same is not a copy of the letter filed with the DSE but a print out of the same separately generated on computer. The copy of the letter does not even contain the signature of the appellant i.e. director of the company. Vide order sheet noting dated 15.2.2012, a finding was recorded that the appellant has not submitted any evidence that the reques....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Income-tax Act, 1961. These expenses are paid as and when asked for. These expenses crystallized in this year only. Hence cannot be said pertaining to earlier years. These expenses are not capital expenditure. These were also not personal expenditure. These expenditures were incurred during the previous year. These relate to the business carried out by the assessee. Ld. AR pleaded that these expenditures were wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and these were not against an offence or prohibited law. Ld. AR also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Modipan Ltd. - 334 ITR 102 (Delhi). For the proposition that even when mercantile system of accounting followed and expenses settled in the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs.5,000/- were allowable during the year under consideration as these expenses were first time arose and crystallized during this year. Similarly, the processing fee of Rs.10,000/- also arise and crystallized during the year hence pertains to the year under consideration. As far as listing fee for period upto 31.12.2004 of Rs.10,000/- and listing fee of Rs.5000/- each for 2005 and 2006 are concerned, we would like to say that the assessee had made an application on 17.01.2002 for delisting of its securities from the Delhi Stock Exchange. The application was made on 17.01.2002. The assessee was under the bonafide belief that he has not to make any payment towards the listing fees. Revenue has also not brought on record anything which could ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Japan Airlines Co. Ltd. - 325 ITR 298. In these cases, it has been held that payment made by an airline for landing charges and parking charges of Airport Authority of India are in the nature of rent, hence TDS is deductible u/s 194I of the Act and not u/s 194C. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 9. We have heard both the sides on the issue. The assessee's claim that the amount paid of Rs.60,000/- for the car parking comes u/s 194I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the applicability of the TDS provisions. However, from the facts, we find that there is nothing on record which shows that the parking space was earmarked for the assessee. The rent agreement, if any, has not been filed on the record an....