2018 (5) TMI 1720

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Responsibility Expenses was confirmed. 2. The assessee preferred the following grounds of appeal :- (i) That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad both on law and facts. (ii) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining disallowance of a sum of Rs. 72,28,051/-, debited under the expense head Corporate Social Responsibilities under the mistaken belief that the above expenditure is incurred by the appellant under any statue which is non-existence, in complete disregard of the details provided regarding the nature and justification of such expenditure incurred by the appellant. It has been reiterated time and again in the submissions made to the learned author....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....treated as revenue expenditure u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act. The action of the learned authority is not based merely on hypothecation, conjectures, and sumerise. (iii) That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad on law in as far as sustaining the addition of the impugned sum of Rs. 72,28,051/-, which addition, the learned Assessing Officer had made by disallowance of the impugned sum, by treating the expenditure incurred by the appellant and claimed as revenue expenditure, as capital expenditure. (iv) That the appellant craves leave and prays that the relief claimed above or any other relief, to which the appellant is entitled, may kindly be allowed. 3. The solitary issue involved in this a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....penditure for construction of hospital, providing ambulance, repairs of schools etc are covered u/s 37 (1) of the Act. He therefore, submitted that this expenditure is allowable to the assessee. On the introduction of the explanation (2), he supported order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals). 6. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer and submitted that amendment made u/s 37 (1) by introducing explanation (2) is retrospective in nature, as it is clarificatory. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the orders of the lower authorities. The assessee is a Central Government Public Sector Undertaking working under the Ministry of Finance. Its business includes printing of currency notes....