TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1416
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ture do not require adjudication. 4. In ground no.1, the Department has challenged allowance of assessee's claim of deduction of Rs. 21,17,250, towards loan processing charges. 5. Brief facts are, the assessee a non-banking finance company (NBFC) is engaged in hire, purchase, finance and loan business. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 31st October 2007, declaring loss of Rs. 12,06,02,070. During the assessment proceedings, on examining the details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has taken loan from Citi Bank for which a sum of Rs. 21,17,250, has been paid to the bank towards loan processing charges. He found that the assessee has debited the said amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er (Appeals). Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions of both the learned Counsels, we uphold the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by dismissing the ground raised. 8. In ground no.2, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction of an amount of Rs. 4,80,84,411, towards loans sourcing fees paid to Maruti Udyog Ltd. Being of the view that by incurring such expenditure, assessee has derived enduring benefit, the Assessing Officer has treated it as capital expenditure and accordingly added back to the income of the assessee. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 9. After considering the submissions of the assessee and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Therefore, he called upon the assessee to explain why the expenditure claimed should not be disallowed as was done in the preceding assessment year. In response, assessee justifying its claim submitted some supporting evidence. However, the Assessing Officer opining that complete verification of the expenditure could not be made in the absence of supporting evidence and there is substantial increase in the expenditure compared to the preceding assessment year, disallowed 10% out of the total expenditure claimed. Accordingly, he added back an amount of Rs. 1,07,53,413. The assessee challenged the disallowance before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). In the course of hearing before the first appellate authority, the assessee furnished the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her Expenses was towards different types of services received by the assessee and sales promotion services is one amongst them. He submitted, after considering the bifurcation of expenses incurred by the assessee, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has disallowed 10% of Rs. 74,62,146, which was incurred towards sales promotion expenses. He submitted, the matter can be restored back to the Assessing Officer for verification. As could be seen, the Assessing Officer has disallowed 10% of the expenses incurred towards sales promotion. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also sustained the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Undisputedly, the assessee has not challenged 10% disallowance out of sales promotion expenses sustained by the....