TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 238
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te assessee‟s appeal in ITA no. 3300/Mum/2013 for assessment year 2009-10. It is placed on record that the assessee filed rectification application with learned CIT(A) u/s 154 to rectify certain mistakes apparent from record in the appellate order of learned CIT(A) which was rectified by learned CIT(A) vide order dated 25-04-2013 u/s 154, which is placed on record. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the memo of appeal filed with the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter called "the tribunal") for assessment year 2009-10 read as under:- "1. On the Facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 17, Mumbai erred in holding that amount paid by way of demurrage charges or handling charges or any amount of similar nature of Rs. 9,60,431/- are covered u/s. 194C and TDS was deductible on the same. The Appellant therefore prays the disallowance be deleted. 2. On the Facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 17, Mumbai erred in upholding disallowance of handling charges or any amount of similar nature of Rs. 9,60....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red in India and hence provisions of Section 194C are applicable. Since, the assessee has not deducted income-tax at source on the export freight amounting of Rs. 59,99,109/- the same was disallowed by the A.O u/s 40(a)(ia) and added to the income of the assessee, vide assessment order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the AO u/s 143(3). 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the AO u/s 143(3), the assessee filed an appeal before learned CIT(A) and submitted that all details with respect to export freight charges such as bill no., name of party, amount in Rs. along with sample bill of shipping freight which were duly submitted before the AO. It was submitted that copy of CBDT circular no. 723 dated 19.09.1995 and copy of letter from Income Tax Department to shipping companies providing relief from deduction of income tax at source were also submitted before the A.O. . It was submitted that no income-tax has been deducted at source on export freight as the payment have been made to resident agents of non-resident shipping companies keeping in view CBDT circular no. 723 dated 19.09.1995 r.w.s. 172 of the Act. The assessee submitted that the service tax has been c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) which is over and above ocean freight paid. The copy of remand report was forwarded by learned CIT(A) to the assessee for comments. It was submitted by the assessee in reply to remand report that the assessee has not deducted income-tax at source on export freight as payment have been made to resident agents of non resident shipping company . It was submitted that all exemption certificates issued by the I T Department in favour of non resident shipping companies were submitted as additional evidences before learned CIT(A) which were forwarded for remand report by learned CIT(A) to the AO. It was submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings only sample copies of freight bills and exemption certificates were submitted and if the AO had asked for the complete details, it would have been furnished. The assessee relied upon circular no. 723 dated 19.09.1995 and provision of section 172 of the Act. It was submitted that export freight payments are made to Indian agents to non-resident shipping companies who have made payment to non-resident shipping companies on behalf of the assessee and thus the assessee is merely reimbursing the expenses which does not warrant dedu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order dated 26.03.2013 passed by learned CIT(A), by holding as under:- " 5.11 It can be seen from the above that the payment made to non-resident Shipping Company or their agents are not covered by 194C. Therefore the issue of non deduction of TDS and Ocean Freight charges and other charges paid on behalf of appellant to the agent of the representative of the resident shipping company is decided in favour of the appellant. However it is seen that the Freight Charges of Rs. 59,99,109/- also includes however, service charges of Rs. 9,60,431/- (excluding the service tax of Rs. 99,989/-). This expenditure is other than the Ocean Freight paid and the provisions of sec. 194C of the Act are applicable on this amount on which the appellant should have deducted TDS. Since the same has not been done, the stand of the AO to that extent is upheld and the balance amount is deleted following the decisions mentioned above. Hence the ground of appeal of the appellant is partly allowed." Thus learned CIT-(A) granted part relief to the assessee so far as payments of ocean freight is concerned and so far as part relief granted by learned CIT-(A) is concerned, the Revenue has not come in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to the payments made to the Indian agents or authorized representative on behalf of foreign shipping companies for carriage of goods, passengers, livestock or mail shipped at a port in India by a ship are not covered for deduction of tax at source under provision of 194C and 195 . The CIT(A) has already granted relief to the assessee for ocean freight of Rs. 49,38,689/- paid by the assessee to these Indian agents of non-resident shipping companies towards the ocean freight while rest of the amount of Rs. 9,60,431/- paid towards other service charges were disallowed by the CIT(A) by invoking provision of section 40(a)(ia) as assessee has not deducted income-tax at source on such payments. The Revenue has not come in appeal against part relief granted by learned CIT(A), thus it is accepted by Revenue that these ocean freights were paid ultimately to non-resident shipping companies. The only issue survives is the payment of Rs. 9,60,431/- paid to these agents of non-resident shipping companies, who have raised these service charges vide same debit notes wherein ocean freight is debited. The said non-resident shipping companies have confirmed vide freight certificates to have receive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the disallowance of Rs. 9,60,431/- u/s 40(a)(ia) as made by the AO which was later confirmed by learned CIT(A). The assessee succeeds on this ground. We order accordingly. 8. The appeal of the assessee in ITA no 3300/Mum/2013 is allowed. Assessment year 2010-11-Assessee's appeal in ITA No.2423/Mum/2014 9. We have observed that ground no. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee is with respect to disallowance of payment of Rs. 10,60,464/- on account of other services charges paid to Indian agents of non-resident shipping companies which is similar to the disallowance made by the AO in the assessment year 2009-10 which we have already adjudicated while deciding the appeal for assessment year 2009-10 in ITA no. 3300/Mum/2013 in preceding para‟s and ratio of our decision in ITA No. 3300/Mum/2013 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the said disallowance for assessment year 2010-11 in ITA no 2423/Mum/2014 as the issue is similar. Thus, assessee succeeds on ground no 1 and 2 raised by the assessee in memo of appeal filed with the tribunal. We order accordingly. 10. Other grounds viz. ground no. 3 to 5 raised by the assessee in memo of appeal filed with tribunal in ITA no. 2423/Mum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3. The assessee also did not deducted income-tax at source on these payments. The AO observed that in effect while the payments were subject to income-tax deduction at source as per provisions of the 1961 Act but neither the assessee deducted income-tax at source nor the persons to whom the assessee made payments for such reimbursement deducted income-tax at source. The AO thus disallowed expenses incurred by the assessee towards clearing and forwarding expenses of Rs. 55,94,324/- by invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for failure to deduct income-tax at source as per provision of section 194C, vide assessment order dated 20-03-2013 passed by the AO u/s 143(3). 12. Aggrieved by assessment order dated 20-03-2013 passed by the AO u/s 143(3), the assessee filed first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed by learned CIT(A) on this issued vide appellate order dated 14-02-2014 passed by learned CIT(A), by holding as under:- " 3.3.1 I have carefully considered the submissions and contention of the Ld. AR of the appellant and also carefully gone through the facts and explanation given by the Ld. AR of the appellant as well as the Ld. A.O. In this case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced at page 56/paper book are reproduced as under:- DETAILS OF CLEARING & FORWARDING (IMPORT) AND AGENCY CHARGES AS AT 310310 RUPEES PARTICULARS Clearing & Forwarding Agency Clearing Charges TOTAL Gaurav Agencies 20,838.00 2,206.00 23,044.00 Mahavir Shipping Agency 3,61,933.00 16,159.00 3,78,092.00 Sureways Shipping Solutions 52,11,553.00 1,93,285.00 54,04,838.00 TOTAL 55,94,324.00 2,11,650.00 58,05,974.00 It is thus the claim of the assessee that it has dully deducted income-tax at source on agency clearing charges to the tune of Rs. 2,11,650/- by complying with applicable provisions of 1961 Act, while it is claim of the assessee that income-tax has not been deducted at source on clearing and forwarding expenses to the tune of 55,94,324/- as it is claimed that this is merely reimbursement of the expenses . Our attention was drawn to page no. 352 to 548 wherein such invoices for clearing and forwarding expenses has been placed issued by the C &F agents and thus it is prayed that disallowance made by the A.O need to be deleted. He relied upon the following decisions in support of his contentions that reimburseme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and forwarding charges are actual expenses reimbursed to C& F Agents and hence there is no requirement of deduction of income-tax at source on these payments u/s 194C. It is admitted position that even the said C & F agents have also not deducted income-tax at source while eventually making these payments to the third party service providers on behalf of the assessee. The assessee has placed on record various invoices raised by the clearing and forwarding agents which are placed in paper book/ page 350-548. We have carefully gone through these invoices and have observed from the invoices that the clearing and forwarding agents have raised bills for expenses which were incurred by C & F Agents as agents of the assessee for clearing the import shipments of the assessee but there is no evidence that they are in-fact actual expenses in the nature of reimbursements and there is no element of profit retained by C & F Agent as the receipts/supporting bills issued by various third party service providers to the assessee through C & F Agents are not furnished . Secondly, it is a matter of record that the said C & F Agent had also not deducted any tax at source while making payments to vario....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stage when the payer makes the payment to the payee after deduction of income-tax, which information help revenue to plug evasion of taxes and broad-basing tax base of the economy. The Courts will not lean towards any measure or attempt which perpetuate or encourage evasion of taxes. Thus, had it been purely reimbursements of expenses which were otherwise not subjected to rigours of deduction of income-tax at source, situation would have been entirely different as in that situation there would have been no occasion to deduct income tax at source either by assessee nor by its C & F agents and merely because the invoices have been raised by C & F agents for reimbursement of these expenses could not have brought the same within the purview and ambit of Chapter XVII-B as the said expenses would have been ab-initio not within ambit of Chapter XVII-B, but here in the instant appeal before us most of these expenses which are covered by invoices raised by C & F agents are within purview and ambit of Chapter XVII-B but non-compliance has taken place as neither assessee nor C & F agents have deducted income-tax at source. It is important to mention that it is the assessee who has debited the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lied upon following decisions : Sr. No Description 1. Pri. CIT v. Consumer Marketing (India) P. Ltd. [2015] 64 Taxmann.com 16 (Gujarat) 2. CIT v. Opera Global P. Ltd [2014] 52 Taxmann.com 299 (Delhi) 3. ITO v. Dr. Willmar Schwabe India P. Ltd. [2005] 3 SOT 71 (DELHI) 4. Om Satya Exim P. Ltd v. ITO ITA no. 1335/Ahd/2010 5. ACIT v. P.P overseas ITA no. 733/Mum/2010 (a) In the case of Pr.CIT v. Consumer Marketing (India) Private Limited(supra) relied upon by the assessee, Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court held that no tax is required to be deducted at source on reimbursement of expenses where separate bills were raised, in this case the C & F agent has sought reimbursement of expenses by raising debit note along with necessary bills/receipts/supporting evidences issued by third party service providers, while in the instant case there are no supporting bills/receipt/evidences from third party service provider which are enclosed by C & F agents in its invoice for reimbursement of expenses as to come to the conclusion that there is no element of profit embedded in these expenses claimed by C & F agent.It was also brought to the notice of the Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at payments made by C& F agents are towards custom duty, DEPB license etc. which were liability of the assessee and were merely collected by C & F agents and in any case they did not attracted provisions of Section 194C. We have observed that Mumbai-tribunal has decided similar issue in details in the case of ITO v. Rajeshwaree Shipping & Logistics (2017) 83 taxmann.com 262 (Mum-trib.), as under : "8. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the assessment order, it is very much clear that in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has furnished every necessary details in respect of payment of Rs. 3,28,88,794 made to CFS/ICD operating under JNPT/BPT. On a perusal of the relevant details/documentary evidences, it is found that before the Assessing Officer, the assessee has not only produced the bills raised by the CFS/ICD on the assessee but also the bills raised by the assessee on the importers towards expenditure incurred on behalf of them. It is also noticed, in the final invoice drawn by the CFS/ICD submitted before the Assessing Officer all particulars of transactions were noted such a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons of section 40(a)(ia) are not attracted. Even otherwise also, if the entire issue is looked at rationally and dispassionately it is to be noticed that during the relevant previous year, assessee has earned gross commission income of Rs. 83,47,952, which has been shown in the Profit & Loss account and the Assessing Officer has also not disputed the income shown by the assessee. Therefore, for earning such income of Rs. 83,47,952, neither the assessee can be expected to have incurred expenditure of more than Rs. 3 crore nor the disallowance can be made of that amount. In fact, the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Rank Shipping Agency (P.) Ltd., (supra), while deciding identical issue of applicability of TDS provisions to payments made by a custom house agent on behalf of importers held as under:- "9. We have considered submissions of ld representatives of parties and orders of authorities below. 10. During the course of hearing, ld D.R. has not disputed the fact that assessee received the said payment aggregating to Rs. 18,79,38,741 on account of reimbursement of expenses from its clients apart from agency commission and the agency commission has been considered as ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igh Court in CIT v. Cargo Linkers [2008] 218 CTR 695, where in the Hon'ble Court held that the assessee being a C& F agent, is an intermediary, who booked cargo for and on behalf of importers and exporters and facilitated the contract for carrying goods, therefore not liable to withhold tax u/s 194C from payments made towards air freight on behalf of its customers, decided in favour of the assessee. We are in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) because such person who acts as an agent has no liability to deduct tax at source because he is acting merely as an intermediary between the airlines/shipping lines as also custodians of goods on one hand and the importers/exporters on the other. The contract is between the parties and not with the agent. The invoices and other shipping documents are in the names of importer/exporter and the assessee merely receives funds and disburses to the airline/shipping lines till clearance by the customs. The statutory warehousing charges is also the sole liability of the clients and the assessee merely defrays the expenses on behalf of the clients, thus, the assessee/agents are not liable to deduct ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....since the contract was between the exporter and shipping lines and the assessee was merely working as intermediary/agent, therefore, he is not a person responsible to deduct tax in terms of section 194 C of the Act. In view of these facts, we find no infirmity in conclusion drawn by the ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). 2.6. So far as, survey fee is concerned, it is paid to the persons or agencies appointed by CCSP's who conduct inspection of the goods. Inspection of cargo is integral step for custom clearance. Likewise seal wire charges are paid to local labour operating within the customs notified premises to seal/unseal the cargo/container, thus, such payments are paid on behalf of the client and the assessee is merely acting as intermediator for the smooth clearance on behalf of the clients. Identical is the situation for crane/fork lift charges. Reliance can be placed upon the decision in ACIT v. Accenture Services (P) Ltd. (Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal) and GIRDCO Ltd. v. ACIT (Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal). Respectfully following the decisions discussed hereinabove and also discussed in the impugned order, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mited ( 2016 ) 234 taxman 825(Delhi) while at time of de-novo determination of the issue on merits in accordance with law, however the onus shall be on the assessee to bring on record evidences that the ultimate payments made by C&F agents to the payee have been offered by them to tax. Needless to say that the assessee will be allowed adequate and proper opportunity of being heard by the AO in accordance with law as per principles of natural justice in accordance with law. The assessee shall be allowed by the AO to file necessary evidences and explanations in course of de-novo proceedings which shall be admitted by the AO in the interest of justice and thereafter adjudicated on merits in accordance with law. It is also to be put on record that SLP has been filed by Revenue with Hon‟ble Supreme Court against decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ansal Landmark Township Private Limited ( 2016 ) 234 taxman 825(Delhi) wherein Leave has been granted by Hon‟ble Supreme Court ( (2016) 242 taxman 5(SC). This disposes of ground no. 3 raised by the assessee. We order accordingly. 17. Ground no. 4-Further it was observed by the A.O. from P&L A/c that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant has mentioned that own funds were utilized for the capital work-in-progress. The appellant had its own capital and reserves totalling to Rs. 1,68,52;747/- and the capital work-in-progress was only Rs. 64,75,125/-. The comparison of the increase in the interest cost during the year is only Rs. 4,48,729/-, whereas the increase in the bank charges is approximately of Rs. 17 lakhs. The appellant has relied on the following case laws. i. Ahuja Platinium Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (ITA T Mumbai) ii. CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom) iii. DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd. 289 ITR 194 (SC) 4.4 In the above cases, it is pertinent to note the decision given by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that, "if there are interest free funds available an assessee is sufficient to meet its investment and at the same time, the assessee has raised loans then it can be presumed that the investments were from the interest free funds available." 4.5 In the instant case, the AO has not proved that the interest free funds were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it balance in the account. In such a situation, in case the assessee had not advanced 'loans to its sister- concern on interest-free basis, even if the alleged surplus amount could not be repaid to the financial institution before the scheduled date as far as the term loan is concerned, but the interest being paid by the assessee on the working capital could have certainly been saved to that extent. It can very well be held that borrowing of the funds by the company to that extent was not for the purpose of business and there is nothing on record to suggest that amounts were advanced to sister-concern. to advance some - business object. Rather, the same is in the nature of funds being provided to sister- concern which are closely-held to earn) on business and earn income thereon without incurring any cost of fund or without even investing anything. If the assessee had to transfer the money in the form of interest-free loan from one company to another close company, the same could very well be in the manner by introducing less capital in one company and by investing the balance amount in the other company as capital because according to the assessee, it had share capital funds o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stitution, still the same is either required to be circulated and utilised for the purpose of business or to be invested in a manner in which it generates income and not that it is diverted towards sister concern free of interest. This would result in not presenting true and correct picture of the accounts of the assessee as at the cost being incurred by the assessee, the sister concern would be enjoying the benefits thereof. It cannot possibly be held that the funds to the extent diverted to sister concerns or other persons free of interest were required by the assessee for the purpose of its business and loans to that extent were required to be raised. We do not subscribe to the theory of direct nexus of the funds between borrowings of the funds and diversion thereof for non business purposes. Rather, there should be nexus of use of borrowed funds for the purpose of business to claim deduction under Section 36(1)(iii). If the plea of the assessee is accepted that the interest free advances made to the sister concerns for non-business purposes was out of its own funds in the form of capital introduced in business, that again will show a camouflage by the assessee as at the time of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....V.I. Baby & Co. (2002) 174 CTR (Ker) 164 : (2002) 254 ITR 248 (Ker), CIT vs, Motor General Finance Ltd. (2002) 173 CTR (Del) 123 : (2002) 254 ITR 449 (Del), CIT vs. H.R. Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. (1990) 87 CTR (All) 132 : (1991) 187 ITR 363 (All), Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 344 (Ori), CIT vs. H.R. Sugar Factory (1991) 190 ITR 349 (All), S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr. (2004) 269 ITR 535 (P&H), CIT vs. Saraya Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. (1993) 110 CTR (All) 23: (1993) 201 ITR 181 (All), Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1995) 127 CTR (Bom) 359 : (1994) 208 ITR 989 (Bom), Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 122 CTR (Bom) 344: (1995) 215 ITR 582 (Bom), Elmer Havell Electrics & Ors. vs. CIT & Anr. (2005) 197 CTR (Del) 316 : (2005) 277 ITR 549 (Del) and C1T vs. Sujanni Textiles (P) Ltd. (1998) 147 CTR (Mad) 417: (1997) 225 ITR 560 (Mad) relied on; Veecumsees vs. CIT (1996) 133 CTR (SC) 500 : (1996) 9 SCC 25 distinguished; CIT vs. Orissa Cement Ltd. (2001) 252 ITR 878 (Del), CIT vs. Tin Box Co. (2003) 182 CTR (Del) 171 : (2003) 260 ITR 637 (Del), CIT vs. Radico Khaitan Ltd. (2005) 194 CTR (All) 451 : (2005) 274 ITR 354 (All), CIT vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Wor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that interest free funds available with the assessee were utilised for making payments for interest free loans and advances. The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that assessee has to prove with reference to books of accounts that the assessee has utilised interest bearing funds for the purposes of business of assessee and he relied upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A Builders Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC). Thus, it was fairly submitted by both the parties that this issue can be restored to AO for verification of contention of the assessee on merits in accordance with law. 20. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record including case laws. The authorities below have disallowed interest expenses to the tune of Rs. 35,38,692/- on the grounds interest bearing funds have been diverted for granting interest free loans and advances. . The claim of the assessee is that the amounts were advanced to the said parties out of the interest free funds which were available with the assessee which were to the tune of Rs. 3.59 crores as detailed hereunder(page 43/pb) : DETAILS OF INTEREST FREE OWN FUNDS PARTICULARS AMOUNT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid expenses by holding the same to be capital in nature as expenditure incurred for increasing capital has to be capital expenditure, by relying upon following decisions :- i) Brook Bond India Ltd. v. CIT(1997) 91 Taxman 26(SC) ii) Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd v. ITO (1983) 12 Taxman 178 (Bom) iii) Punjab State Industrial Development Carp Ltd v. CIT(1997) 93 Taxman 5 (SC) iv) Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1982) 138 ITR 45 (Guj) v) Bharat Carban & Ribbon Mfg Co. Ltd v. CIT (1981) 127 ITR 239 (Delhi) vi) Vazir Sultan Tabacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT(1988) 41 Taxman 7 (AP) vii) Metro General Credits Ltd. v. CIT(1996) 221 ITR 99 (Mad) 22 . Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal with learned CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under:- "6.3.1. I have carefully considered the submissions and contention of the Ld. AR of the appellant and also carefully gone through the facts and explanation given by the Ld. AR of the appellant as well as the Ld. AO. I find that the issue is clearly covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brook Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pent for new undertaking at Daman which is claimed to be extension of undertaking was shown under the head capital work in progress.Thus, it is claimed that increased capital base is used for setting up new undertaking at Daman which is by way of expansion of capacity . Our attention was also drawn to the schedule of fixed assets which is placed in paper book page no. 7 wherein capital WIP was shown at Rs. 1.65 crores as at 31-03-2010 and addition to land has been shown to be Rs. 17.04 lacs during previous year relevant to the impugned assessment year. Reference is drawn to Provisions of Section 35D which stipulates as under: "[Amortisation of certain preliminary expenses. 35D. (1) Where an assessee, being an Indian company or a person (other than a company) who is resident in India, incurs, after the 31st day of March, 1970, any expenditure specified in sub-section (2),- (i) before the commencement of his business, or (ii) after the commencement of his business, in connection with the extension of his [***] undertaking or in connection with his setting up a new [***] unit, the assessee shall, in accordance with and subject to the provis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (d) such other items of expenditure (not being expenditure eligible for any allowance or deduction under any other provision of this Act) as may be prescribed. (3) Where the aggregate amount of the expenditure referred to in sub-section (2) exceeds an amount calculated at two and one-half per cent- (a) of the cost of the project, or (b) where the assessee is an Indian company, at the option of the company, of the capital employed in the business of the company, the excess shall be ignored for the purpose of computing the deduction allowable under sub-section (1) : [Provided that where the aggregate amount of expenditure referred to in sub-section (2) is incurred after the 31st day of March, 1998, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words "two and one-half per cent", the words "five per cent" had been substituted.] Explanation.-In this sub-section- (a) "cost of the project" means- (i) in a case referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (1), the actual cost of the fixed assets, being land, buildings, leaseholds, plant, machinery, furniture, fittings and railway sidings (including expenditure....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....even years. (4) Where the assessee is a person other than a company or a co-operative society, no deduction shall be admissible under sub-section (1) unless the accounts of the assessee for the year or years in which the expenditure specified in sub-section (2) is incurred have been audited by an accountant as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288, and the assessee furnishes, along with his return of income for the first year in which the deduction under this section is claimed, the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed. (5) Where the undertaking of an Indian company which is entitled to the deduction under sub-section (1) is transferred, before the expiry of the period of ten years specified in sub-section (1), to another Indian company in a scheme of amalgamation,- (i) no deduction shall be admissible under sub-section (1) in the case of the amalgamating company for the previous year in which the amalgamation takes place; and (ii) the provisions of this section shall, as far as may be, apply to the amalgamated comp....