TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 477
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The revenue has raised five substantive grounds of appeal:- 1. The ld. CIT(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of valuation of closing stock. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 45,238/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of insurance premium on two new vehicles. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,89,289/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 41(1) of the Act as unproved creditors. 4. The ld. CIT(A) has erred and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 76,27,807/- made by the As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed. 5. Ground no. 2 relates to the deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 45,238/- made by the A.O on account of insurance premium on two new vehicles. 6. While scrutinizing the return of income, the A.O found that the assessee has purchased new vehicles on which it has paid insurance premium. The A.O was of the firm belief that the insurance premium paid on the new vehicles has to be treated as capital expenditure. The A.O accordingly treated the insurance premium as cost of the asset and treated the same as capital expenditure and allowed depreciation thereon. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance holding that the payment of insurance premium on Motor Car purchased whether new or old, is an admissible item of expenditure and allowed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Technology 39670 (d) Nirav Pharma 150770 Total 289289 10. The assessee was asked to explain why the above creditors should not be added back as income u/s. 41(1) of the Act. The assessee strongly contended that there is no suggestion of liability, the liability exists and the assessee is bound to make the payment. The A.O was of the firm belief that since the liability would get barred by limitation, therefore, proceeded by treating Rs. 2,89,289/- as income of the assessee u/s. 41(1) of the Act. 11. The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the facts and the circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) observed that there is no cessation or remission of liability during the year un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the opinion that as per the provisions of Section 194C of the Act, the assessee was under legal obligation to deduct tax at source failing which it has violated the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia). The A.O made an addition of Rs. 76,27,807/-. 15. Aggrieved by this, the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and reiterated that the expenditures have been incurred by its employees and the assessee has simply reimbursed the same. Supporting documents were furnished before the ld. CIT(A) who after verifying the same observed that the supporting documents indicate the month-wise salary/DA paid to various employees and the reimbursement is on account of salary, travelling, TA, DA and other related miscellaneous expenses and the imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not accept the contention of the assessee in claiming this expenditure as revenue expenditure. Since the trade mark is considered as a capital asset, the A.O treated Rs. 5,12,106/- as capital expenditure and allowed the claim of depreciation @ 25%. 19. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and reiterated its claim of Trade Mark Registration as revenue expenditure. It was explained to the ld. CIT(A) that the expenditure in question is not the fees charged by the government authority for the registration of the trade mark. The expenditure has been incurred for the legal and technical and professional services rendered by the payees in connection with the registration of the trade mark. After considering the facts, the ld. CIT....