TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1008
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....moved adjourned petition in almost 19 cases out of the listed case of 23. This en block adjournment is not possible and hence, the possible case, we have taken up for hearing and decided the issue by rejecting the adjournment petition. In this case also, we have rejected the adjournment petition and heard the appeal. 4. The first issue in this appeal of revenue is as regards to the order of CIT(A) allowing deduction in respect of PF & ESI payments without considering the provisions stipulated in section 36(1)(va) of the Act. For this, revenue has raised following ground no.1: "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in directing the AO to allow deduction in respect of Pf and ESI without considering the provisions stipulated in Sec.36(1)(va)." 5. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the assessee and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee claimed deduction of PF and ESI payments amounting to Rs. 7,77,244/- being employees' contribution u/s 43B of the Act but the AO disallowed by noting that these payments are not made within the due dates as mentioned in the respective Acts. Before CIT(A) assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nces of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in directing the AO to allow puja expense for Rs. 2,90,237/- and temple expense for Rs. 2,74,535/- since such expenses are non-business expenditure and the assessee company could not establish the nexus between the necessity of such expenditure and the purpose of the business carried on by the assessee company." 8. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the assessee and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Briefly stated facts are that the AO disallowed puja expenses and temple expenses for the reason that these are not for a legitimate requirement of the business. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee. Aggrieved, revenue came in second appeal before Tribunal. 9. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No. 589/K/2012 for AY 2007-08 dated 19.12.2013, wherein Tribunal has allowed as under: "Aggrieved, now Revenue came in appeal before us. We find that the puja expense incurred on occasion of Diwali and Mahurat are customary expenses and going by the turnover of the assessee-company and the nature of the business of the assessee, we fee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....count of non deduction of TDS u/s. 40(a)(ia) in view of the judgment given by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Transmission Corporation of India reported in 239 ITR 587." 13. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No. 589/K/2012 for AY 2007-08 dated 19.12.2013, wherein Tribunal has allowed as under: "7. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that Assessing Officer treated the commission paid to foreign agent as non allowable expenses as assessee failed to deduct TDS and he disallowed the commission to the extent of Rs. 11,35,554/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who allowed the claim of assessee by observing vide para-7.1 of his order as under:- "7.1 It is seen that AO made this disallowance on the basis of Supreme Court decision in case of M/s. Transmission Corporation of India reported in 239 ITR 587 wherein it was held that only way to escape liability is to get no deduction certificate or lower rate deduction certificate from AO. Appellant on the other hand has submitted that this issue was further ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ain book profit u/s. 115JB." 15. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the assessee and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Briefly stated facts are that the AO while computing book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act adjusting the book profit by the amount of provision made for Wealth Tax Act Rs. 1.20 lac. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who relying on the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Usha Martin Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (2003) 81 TTJ 158 (Cal) and allowed the claim of assessee. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) as he allowed the claim of assessee by relying on the decision of ITAT in the case of Usha Martin Industries Ltd., supra. This ground of appeal of revenue is dismissed. 16. The sixth issue in this appeal of revenue is against the order of CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of bad debt. For this, revenue has raised following ground no.6: "6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the disallowance of bad debt without deliberating upon the provisions of section 36(2)." 17. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the assessee and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Brief....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt is therefore allowable in view of pronouncement of jurisdictional High court and Apex court. Even now, it is very clear from the Apex Court decision in case of TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT 323 ITR 398 (SC) that after 1st April, 1989, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable. It is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee". Respectfully following the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and Apex Court, the claim of appellant for bad debt of the amount advanced to M/s. Kanoi Plantation Pvt. Ltd. is directed to be allowed." As the issue is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of TRF Ltd., Supra, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and the same is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, this issue of revenue's appeal is dismissed. 18. The seventh issue in this appeal of revenue is against the order of CIT(A) in directing the AO to delete the Nursery Expenses without appreciating the fact that nursery expenses has always been held as capital in nature. For this, revenue has raised following ground no. 7: "7. That on the facts and circu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the expenditure of Rs. 4,68,615/- as a revenue expenditure, though on different grounds, inasmuch as if the plants are raised and maintained in a nursery for being utilized for the purpose of re-plantation without any expansion of the plantation area or replantation in an abandoned area, then it cannot be said to be a capital expenditure. Capital expenditure involves an investment increasing the capital for higher profit. The expansion means extension of plantation to an additional area. An area already abandoned, if replanted would be an expansion of the area under cultivation for the previous year concerned. The maintenance of an area already under cultivation cannot be treated to be an expansion of the plantation nor can it be treated to be an investment or expansion adding to the capital already invested. On the other hand, it would be a maintenance of the plantation itself and, therefore, is a revenue expenditure." In view of the above facts and circumstances and following the case law of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tasati Tea Ltd., supra, we uphold the order of CIT(A) and this issue of revenue's appeal is dismissed. 21. The eighth issue in this app....