TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 314
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as "capital expenditure" as against the "revenue expenditure" being claimed by the assessee - appellant. 1.1 That in doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has arbitrarily rejected the detailed explanations and evidences filed by the assessee - appellant in order to support the claim of "revenue expenditure" and thus, the addition so sustained is unjustified and unsustainable in law. 1.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further failed to appreciate the basic fact that the expenditure incurred on foreign travelling for purchase of machinery is a bonafide business expenditure necessary to run the business of the assessee - appellant, thus, treating the same as capital expenditure is uncalle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that no disallowance is warranted of the expenditure incurred to the extent of expenditure paid uls 40(a)(ia) of the Act, and as the entire sum of interest stood "paid" during the year thus, there was no sum remaining to be "payable" at the end of the financial year 2009-10 relevant to instant assessment year 2010-11 and as such, no disallowance is called for and the disallowance so sustained deserves to be deleted. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in law and on facts in sustaining the aforesaid additions in the hands of assessee -appellant, without giving any fair and proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant company, thereby, violating the principles of natural justice. 2. The brief f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f foreign tour of director for acquisition of machinery, and as such, since the entire expenditure has been incurred during the running of the business, as such, same needs to be allowed as revenue expenditure. (b) That with respect to ground nos. 2 to 2.1, it is submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and facts in sustaining a disallowance of a sum ofRs. 2,48, 358/- on account of interest paid and claimed as deduction under section 36(l)(iii) of the Act. (c) That with respect to ground nos. 3 to 3.2, it is submitted that learned CIT (A) has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining a disallowance of Rs. 25, 33, 675/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, on account of non - deduction of TD....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition of Rs. 4,50,982/-. 5.1 With regard to ground nos. 2 to 2.1 are concerned, since these grounds were not pressed by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee, hence, the same are dismissed as not pressed. 5.2 With regard to ground nos. 3 to 3.2 are concerned, I find that assessee had filed Certificate dated 28.3.2013 from MIs L&T Finance (at page 26 of the paper book filed by assessee) which reads as under:- "L&T Finance To Pile Foundation Company 29/1, Savitri Nagar, Near Sheikh Sarai, Phase-I, New Delhi - 11 017 Reg.: Finance charges received from M/s Pile Foundation Company during the FY 2009-10 (AY 2010-11) This is to certify that the finance charges received from M/s Pile Foundation Company by us has been duly report....