TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 22
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TS (one Time Settlement) for intention paid to District Coop Banks under Interest subvention scheme. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of case, the ld. CIT(A) was not justifying in upholding the disallowance out of general charges of Rs. 3000000.00 on account of capital expenditure." 3. In this case the assessee has moved an application dated 13.5.2013 for admission of additional evidence. It was pointed out by the ld. counsel of the assessee that additional evidence mainly consist of copy of OTS scheme, Balance sheet and details of interest. During assessment proceedings, these documents were not sought by the Assessing Officer and the assessee presumed that the Assessing Officer is satisfied with the submissions and therefore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nted for in the year 2008-09 instead of current year i.e.. 2007-08. The note read as under: "Recovery linked one time settlement scheme for members of PACS sharing of financial liability of amongst 3 Tiers - Regarding The bank vide letter No. M&P/REC(2007-08/7894 dated 26.11.2007 proposed to the RCS, Haryana to fix the shares of SCB, CCBs & PACS in the ratio of 20:30:50 after deduction of recoveries of penal interest from the amount t6o be shred by the 3 Tiers as provided in Scheme of the State Govt on the plea that SCB is just a facilitator and coordinator and will not be gainer in any way of recoveries under the scheme. However, RCS vide Memo No. 3/7/2006/CS/11649 dated 17.12.2007 directed to share the interest liability in the rati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s were outstanding on 31.3.2006 which relate to the earlier years, the whole of the expenditure would become to be deductible in this year i.e. Assessment year 2008-09. In any case treatment of particular item of expenditure in the accounting books is not relevant, if it is otherwise allowable in terms of a particular provisions of law. In this regard he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. V CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (S.C). 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue strongly supported the order of the Assessing Officer. She further submitted that the assessee had not filed the copy of the scheme before the Assessing Officer and the details of calculations of interest. 9. W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer. Since we have already admitted these documents by way of additional documents, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of Assessing Officer to decide then issue after going through the documents filed by way of additional evidence in the light of the principle given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above two judgments. 10. Ground No. 2 - After hearing both the parties we find that during assessment proceedings the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs towards non-construction charges as per Note No. 8 of the audit report which read as under: "the bank has debited Rs. 30 lakhs as non construction charges for the contention of buioding under the head "General....