TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 877
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 73,54,257/- on account of repair & maintenance of building since the assessee company will get enduring benefit of such expenditure over the years. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,08,114/- on account of repair & maintenance of machinery since the assessee company will get enduring benefit of such expenditure over the years. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in restricting the disallowance of Rs. 39,691/- u/s 14A since his decision is not made methodically and he did not consider the necessity of Sec.14A properly. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... properly. 5. That the appellant craves for leave to add, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing." 3. First of all we take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA No.693/Kol/2012 as under:- 3.1. As regards ground no.1 of the revenue the brief facts of the case are that AO made the disallowance at Rs. 73,54,257/- out of total expenditure of Rs. 79,56,858/- incurred in connection with repairs and maintenance of owned and lease buildings taken on rent. The allegation of AO was that the repair expenses are about 264% of the opening WDV of the buildings and there is no closing WDV in the block of building as the entire building has been sold off. It was explained that there are buildings which are own....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade by the AO. Thus ground no.1 of the revenue is dismissed. 5. As regards ground no.2 of the revenue the brief facts of the case are that AO made the disallowance of Rs. 10,08,114/- out of total expenditure of Rs. 15,89,698/- incurred towards repairs and maintenance of plant and machinery. The AO made disallowance since the WDV as on 01.04.2006 was Rs. 22,50,354/-, cost of repairs was Rs. 14,58,185/- which is about 65% of WDV. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee made the submissions before ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) accepted the explanations of the assessee and deleted the disallowance in full. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. On similar issue we have dismiss the appeal of Revenue being the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act on the ground that no tax had been deducted in respect of rent payment of Rs. 11,93,352/- and such disallowance has been made by the AO on the basis of Tax Audit Report being Schedule-7 of the tax Audit Report. 10.1. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance vide para 7.2. to 7.2.2 of his order. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. It has been observed by the ld. CIT(A) that the entire payment of Rs. 11,93,352/- in connection with hiring of car cannot be treated as payment of rent u/s 194I of the Act. It was observed that none of the person to whom such car hire charges were paid had any taxable income and hence the question of any deduction of tax does not arise. Copies of the IT returns of t....