AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 790
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dition precedent for invoking the jurisdiction under section 147 is conspicuously absent and the assumption of jurisdiction is devoid of any legal sanctity. 3. That, the reliance placed on the decisions of Delhi High Court is misplaced and has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the case. The interpretation placed by Supreme Court on section 147 has not at all adverted to which squarely cover the case of the appellant. 4.That, the reason recorded by the Dy.CIT was vague, whimsical, erroneous and based upon doubts and suspicion. The proceedings initiated are arbitrary, capricious and unwarranted in the eyes of law. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE 5.a) That , the learned CIT (A) XVI, has gone wrong in sustaining the addition of Rs. 14,87,323/- under the head "Legal & Professional Expenses" treating the same to be of capital in natures. b) That, the entire expenditure has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and same qualify for deductions under section 37(1) of the I.T. Act. 6.a) That, the learned CIT (A) XVI, has further gone wrong in sustaining the addition of Rs. 20,96,878/- under the head" Fees & Subscription" treating the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A) should have followed the order of the preceding years passed by predecessor on the said issue. 2.That, the learned CIT(A) has gone wrong in sustaining the impugned action of ACIT in restricting depreciation on UPS, Rack and Battery @ 15% as against the claim of 60% by the Appellant. 3. That, the order of the CIT(A)XVI is bad in law and against the facts of the case. 4. That, the appellant Crave leave for the amendment and also to raise additional grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing. ITA No. 4530/Del/2013 1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by the A.O. under section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act 1961 amounting to Rs. 29,44,538/-; 2. The Ld.CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by the assessing officer amounting to Rs. 21,64,588/- being excess provision made under the head of 'Fringe Benefit Tax' without appreciating the fact that as per report of Statutory Auditor the said amount was pending for more than six months and the assessee company could not furnish any supporting documents to show it was paid within due time; 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in which income chargeable to tax shall be deemed to have escaped assessment. The Ld. AO was of the opinion that sub clause (c) to Explanation 2 to include cases, wherein income chargeable to tax has been under assessed or assessed at too low rate or cases in which income has been made the subject of excessive relief under the Act where excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other elements under the Act have been computed. Ld. AO placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Company Ltd vs. ITO reported in (1961) 41 ITR 191 wherein Hon'ble court had held that: "While it was the duty of the assessee to disclose all facts which had a bearing on the question, what inference should be drawn from the facts so disclosed was a matter to be examined by the Income Tax Officer. The Court further held that the Income Tax Officer could issue a notice for reopening the assessment if he had reasons to believe that the income, profits or gains had been under-assessed and that such under-assessment was due to non disclosure of material facts by the assessee. The Court observed that whether the Income Tax Officer had prima facie reasonable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re for the preceding assessment year i.e. 2005-06 and 2006-07, the benefit of which has already been taken in the preceding years. He further submitted that the sum of Rs. 1,21,14,765/-is not the component of Rs. 1,83,96,739/-which actually is the deferred revenue expenditure for assessment year under consideration. Ld.Counsel submitted that the said deferred revenue expenses as per regular practice is being deferred that accrues in the future years and is not charged to profit and loss account but is taken to the balance sheet under the head miscellaneous expenses. 3.1. Further the Ld.Counsel submitted that as the nature of expenses being revenue in nature, it is claimed in the year in which it was incurred and the same has been claimed as deduction in the computation of income for the year under consideration, and the deferred revenue expenditure for preceding assessment year amounting to Rs. 1,21,14,765/-was charged to profit and loss account for the year under consideration but added in the computation of income. Ld.Counsel submitted that there has been no escapement of income on account of failure to disclose truly and fully all material facts on the basis of which assessing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... observed that assessee in computation of income had added back deferred revenue expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,21,14,765/-and reduced deferred revenue expenditure of Rs. 1,83,96,738/- thereby an understatement of loss of Rs. 62,81,974/-which is the difference between the two has occurred. Since this issue had not been addressed by assessing officer while passing the original assessment Ld. DR emphasised that the reopening of assessment to verify this fact was rightly initiated. 3.3. We have perused the submissions advanced by both the sides in the light of the records placed before us. 3.4. Admittedly assessing officer has not raised any query regarding the deferred revenue expenditure in the questionnaire issued along with notice u/s 143 (1) of the Act during the original assessment proceedings. Thus in our opinion there is no view formed by assessing officer on this issue at the time of original assessment. Further from the statement of audited accounts, more particularly in the Notes to Account, at page 122-127, we observe that 'Deferred Revenue Expenditure' has been held to be: "Expenditure incurred to access new market for companies products, the benefit whereof is expecte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical formulations. Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee is the owner of number of brands and also acquires other brands which it intends to launch in future. Thus it is incumbent upon assessee to register the trademarks so that no other company can infringe on the brand product of the assessee. Ld. Counsel has also submitted that the legal and professional expenses incurred towards registration of the trademarks are an allowable expenditure under section 32 (1) (ii) of the Act. 4.2. On the contrary Ld. DR placed reliance upon the orders of the authorities below. 4.3. We have perused the submissions advanced by both the sides and the light of the records placed before us. It is very much relevant for assessee in its type of business to register its brand with the Trademark Registry as there would be many other pharmaceutical companies coming out with a similar type of products which could infringe the rights of assessee in case the same is not properly registered with the appropriate authority. Under such circumstances we do not see any reason to confirm this addition, as these are genuine expenditure incurred by assessee for the purpo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. 7.2. Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition of Travel Expenses amounting to Rs. 22,34,939/-, as according to Ld. CIT (A) they were incurred on the product development team who has to travel all over India to visit doctors, conduct seminars and to impart marketing strategies, knowledge of products to its sales force who is instrumental in promoting the sales of the product. However, it is observed from the statement of accounts that in schedule 17 at page 121 of paper book assessee has claimed travelling expenses amounting to Rs. 50,996,740/-. Thus we do not find the reason, as to why assessee considered travel expenses amounting to Rs. 22,34,939/- under the head 'deferred revenue expenses' again. This amounts to double deduction claimed by assessee. 7.3. Therefore the disallowance of travel expenses stands upheld. 8. In respect of the expenses under the head Salary and Wages at Rs. 46,80,847/-, Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition as these expenses have been incurred by the Product Department, solely to promote the sale of the appellant's product and to formulate marketing strategy for increasing the sale of the products. 8.1. It is observed that assessee has already claimed salary and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laim of assessee. 10.1. Respectfully following the same, this ground raised by assessee stands dismissed. 10.2. Ground No. 2 is in respect of the depreciation claimed on computer peripherals such as UPS, battery etc. 10.3. In our considered opinion this issue now squarely stands covered in favour of assessee by order of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd in ITA No. 1267/2010 wherein it has been held that computer accessories and peripherals such as printers, scanners and servers etc. form an integral part of computer system and cannot be used without the computer, thus these are part of the computer system and eligible for depreciation at the rate of 60%. 10.4. Accordingly we allow this ground raised by assessee. 10.5. In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed. 11. ITA No. 4530/Del/2013 (Revenue) Ground No. 1 has been raised by revenue against the addition deleted by Ld. CIT (A) towards the employer's contribution in PF and ESI, as it was paid before due date of return and was claimed by assessee as per section 43 (B) (b) of the Act. 11.1. Ld. AO observed that part of the payments have been paid after the due dat....