TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 282
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s: 1.1. Personal Expenses amounting to Rs. 1,514,717 debited to the profit and loss account. 1.2. Administration expenses amounting to Rs. 456,463 debited to the profit and loss account. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in disallowing the claim of set off of unabsorbed depreciation and business loss amounting to Rs. 36,60,177 pertaining to AY 2006-07 while computing the assessed income. 3. Without prejudice to the above, that Ld. AO has, that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, erred in not granting deduction under section 44C of the Act to the appellant in respect of the Head Office expenditure." 2. Ground no. 3 is not pressed, hence dismissed. 3. Brief facts are The a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on the ground that it was the duty of the Reliance to provide office accommodation; travel charges from the site and JLI local office on project business; office telephone/ fax/ E-mail charges; office furniture and equipment; photocopy consumables etc. It was held that there was no justification for the assessee to claim such expenses as there was no business compulsion on the assessee to incur these expenses so as to make them eligible for deduction u/s 37(1). 3.3. Aggrieved, assessee approached the DRP against this draft assessment order and filed detailed objections in this behalf, giving explanation for eligibility of expenditure u/s 37(1). However, assessing officer's draft order was confirmed by the DRP. 3.4. Aggrieved, the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not have incurred this expenditure. 4.3. It is trite law that assessing officer cannot step into the wisdom of a businessman while doing the business and cannot dictate what expenditure should be incurred and whether particular business expenditure should be incurred or not. Section 37(1) allows the eligibility of expenditure as long as it is in the course of business. There is no justification whether the assessee should not have incurred or ought not to have incurred as proposed by assessing officer. Thus, the genuineness of the expenditure is not in question. Its genuineness, incorporation in books of account and eligibility of business is not in question on any cogent reasoning. Suspicion and conjectures how so ever strong cannot den....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by justifiable interpretation of covenants of the agreement. Therefore, the disallowances have been rightly made. 6. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the entire material placed on record. As the facts emerge, there is no agreement about indemnity of expenses as far as Simplex Sport Complex at Ranchi is concerned, which constitutes the major receipt of consultancy fee. Apropos Reliance Antilia Project, the agreement is claimed to be about immunity from expenditure pertaining to Mumbai operations by assessing officer. Whereas the expenditure in question has been incurred for operating Delhi branch office. The Delhi branch office cannot be equated with the project office. In our view the assessee, as a businessman, has the lib....