TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal income of Rs. 41,20,642/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 30.12.2009 and the total income was determined at Rs. 68,09,877/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) vide order dated 05.10.2010 granted partial relief to the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us and the Assessee has also filed a CO. 3. The effective ground raised by the Revenue reads as under:- 1. The ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 21,95,958/- made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act. 4. On the other hand the grounds raised by the Assessee in the C.O reads as under:- 1. The Ld....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A). CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding as under:- 5.3 I have considered the contentions of the appellant as well as the assessment order. It is clear from the above that the entire amount of TDS was deducted on 31/3/2007 (i.e. the last day of the previous year)and except for Rs.493/- which was deposited in the bank on 17/7/2007, remaining amount of this TDS was deposited by challans in State Bank of India by challans which show date as per that Bank as 2/6/2007. The assessee has given a copy of the bank account in Bank of Baroda where this amount has been found debited on 1st June, 2007. It is clear that for the amount to be cleared in a different bank on 1st June, 2007, this amount has been tendered in State Bank of India on 31/6/2007....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thus this ground of Revenue is dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. C.O. No. 31/AHD/2011 (Assessee's appeal) 1st ground is with respect to disallowance of Rs. 4,92,250/- made out of building repair and maintenance expenses. 11. During the course of assessment proceedings, A.O noticed that Assessee had debited building repair and maintenance expenses amounting to Rs. 4,92,250/-. The Assessee was asked to submit the details of expenses. A.O. noted that Assessee had filed only the copy of ledger account of factory building repairs but no other evidence like copy of bills or invoices the date of payment etc was furnished. He therefore was of the view that merely producing a copy of the ledger account does no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore, the addition of Rs. 4,92,250/- made on this account is sustained holding that the assessee has failed to even prove one of the conditions required as enlisted above is satisfied for claiming the expenditure u/s. 37(1) of the Act. 12. Before us the ld. D.R. supported the order of A.O and CIT(A). 13. We have heard the ld. D.R. and perused the material on record. We find that CIT(A) while upholding the addition made by A.O has noted that Assessee had failed to give the proof of expenditure before A.O and even before CIT(A) and accordingly the Assessee has failed to prove that the expenditure has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and the expenditure is not in the nature of capital expenditure. Before us in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the terms of agreement wherein the permission to use the trade-mark was granted, following facts are important. (i) the subject of the letter written by J.M. Advertising and Marketing Pvt. Ltd stating the terms of License Agreement is "permission to use our Trade Mark". The contents of the letter leave no doubt about it. It is clear that the agreement is only for the use of trade-mark and the ownership does not get transferred at all. (ii) The payments are two fold as per para.7, page-2 of the agreement, the amount of Rs. 5 lac is non-refundable enrolment fee. In addition, continuous license fee was to be paid according to the quantities manufactured and marketed by the assessee. It is clear that Rs. 5 lacs paid for is non-refundable i....