TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 417
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t auditors. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that this ground is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment years 1990-91, 1994-95 and 1995-96. Having considered the rival submissions and careful perusal of the impugned order we find that in para 6 though it is mentioned as ground 1(c) however, the finding under said para is in respect of ground 1(d) therefore, there is an apparent mistake in the impugned order in non-adjudication of ground no. 1(c) and mentioning in- correct ground in para 6 of the impugned order. The heading of para 6 may be read as ground no. 1(d). 1(d) 3. As regards ground no. 1(c) we note that an identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment years 1990-91, 1994-95 and 1995-96. For the assessment year 1995-96 the Tribunal has adjudicated an identical issue in para 6.6 and 6.7 which has been reproduced in para 3 of the impugned order of this Tribunal. As it is clear from the finding of this Tribunal for the assessment year 1995-96 that the expenses on statutory/cost auditors has been allowed in full. Following the earlier order of this Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al in its consolidated order for A.Ys. 1986-87 to 1989-90 order dated 22nd March, 2007 at para 154 of the order has held as under: "We have considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that there are two aspects involved. One aspect is regarding exclusion of inter division transfer from total turnover while computing deduction u/s. 8OHHC. Second aspect is regarding exclusion of excise duty from total turnover for the same purpose. Second aspect of the matter regarding exclusion of excise duty from total turnover for computing deduction u/s. 8OHHC is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd. (supra). Respectfully following the same, this aspect of the matter is decided in favour of the assessee. Regarding the first aspect of the matter i.e., regarding exclusion of inter-division transfer from total turnover, we find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement of the Tribunal rendered in assessee's own case for A. Y. 1990-91 to 1992-93. In para No. 152 of the judgem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear 1994-95 in para 32.5 to 32.11 as under: "32.5 We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. Both the parties before us agreed on the factual aspect of the matter The only dispute that emerges is that it is the case of the revenue that by contributing towards the bridge built by the State Government for replacing annual recurring expenses towards piling up of cement bags to prevent sea water entering into the premises of the assessee during rainy season, the assessee derived benefit of an enduring nature whereas, as per the assessee, the contribution is towards replacement of the recurring revenue expenditure, which goes to the revenue field only. Now let us examine the issue with the help of case laws cited before us. 32.6 In the case of CIT vs Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co Ltd reported in 219 ITR 521 (SC), a company was amalgamated with the assessee company and in that connection the assessee incurred certain expenditure towards professional charges paid to solicitors which was claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure. The revenue authorities did not agree with the assessee and disallowed the expenditure. The Hon'ble Apex ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... asset came to the assessee out of the expenditure so capitalized by the assessing officer. The Income-tax Act provides for writing off the expenditure in whatever form it is in the accounts either over the years or in the year of incurring of such expenditure. So, this aspect of the matter also goes against the revenue. Now let us also examine whether the expenditure in question is laid out for the business of the assessee. The assessee contributed for a part of expenditure on a bridge constructed by the State Government across a river. The absence of the bridge caused lot of inconvenience to the assessee inasmuch as that during rainy season sea water entered into the premises of the assessee and the assessee was Incurring recurring expenditure every year to pile the cement bags to stop the sea water entering into its premises. So it was squarely a need of the assessee too to get rid of such recurring inconvenience. It is not a case of stashing away money with a view to avoid the tax net, but a benevolent act; a benevolent act for helping out the governmental agency to make basic infrastructure for the public, where the contributor too, is a beneficiary. In fact, we need and shoul....