TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1091
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 201011)? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal rightly distinguished Delhi High Court decision in CIT vs. Samsung India Electronics Ltd. ( 2013) 356 ITR 354 and Carefour WC & C India P. Ltd. vs. DCIT - (2014) 368 ITR 692 (Del), which it took note of in para 17 of its order? 2. Essentially, issue pertains to allowing an expenditure of Rs. 19.26 lakhs claimed by the assessee by way of expenditure. The Revenue authorities and the Tribunal were of the opinion that during the period relevant to the assessment year 2010-11, the assessee had not commenced its business activities and therefore such prior period expenditure could not be allowed. 3. The assessee is a private limited company and is engaged....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... expenditure of remuneration to the directors. The Assessing Officer also noted substantial time gap between the so called correspondences with prospective buyers and sellers and the actual transaction which typically ranged between one year and in some cases extended to over two years. The Assessing Officer distinguished the judgments relied upon by the assessee. 5. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concurred with the view of the Assessing Officer, however, recorded his own observations and reasons. The Tribunal likewise while rejecting the assessee's appeal, recorded further reasons. The Tribunal though granted partial relief to the extent of Rs. 4.50 lakhs of directors' remuneration and salary, inter alia, on the ground that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....between the letters written by the assessee to the buyer and seller and annual culmination of any transaction of sale or purchase, there was substantial time gap of over one year in almost every case and in some cases over two years. The Assessing Officer therefore refused to link said letters written by the assessee to the actual transaction of sale or purchase. He also noted that in absence of any income generation, it was difficult to understand how the staff was paid bonus as claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal further recorded that there was no evidence on record to suggest that the assessee has registered itself as a trading concern or had procured statutory licenses from the State or the local authorities. 8. We are broadly in the....