TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 834
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting disallowance of Rs. 39,91,717/- made by the AO on a/c of conversion charges paid to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi by not appreciating the fact that the expenditure resulted in a benefit to the assessee of an enduring nature also specially because it was a onetime paramount made for removing the objection for earning out commercial activities. 2. In the facts and circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting disallowance of Rs. 17,16,109/- made by the AO on account of repair and maintenance by ignoring the fact that no such repairs were carried out and the material was lying as stock and without rebutting the finding that actually no repairs were carried out. 3. In the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), claimed to be one time "Conversion Charges" for conversion of use of premises from "Industrial Activities" to "Commercial Activity". Disagreeing with the contentions raised by the assessee, AO made addition of Rs. 39,91,718/-, on the ground that these expenses would confer enduring benefit to the assessee by treating the same as capital in nature. Assessing Officer further noticed that the assessee claimed Repair and Maintenance Expenses of Building to the tune of Rs. 2458366 as against earlier year's expenses of Rs. 83316. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee, AO made addition of Rs. 17,16,109/-, on the ground that the assessee has purchased Marble at the Fag end of the year just to claim repai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om Rs. 2,13,49,07,433/- to Rs. 1,90,97,76,450/- and thereby made addition of Rs. 22,41,828/- to the total income of the assessee. 3. The Asseessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing the appeal, who has deleted the addition made by the AO by allowing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 4. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and order passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. Ground no. 1. 5. In so far as the question of Capitalization of conversion and Parking Charges of Rs. 39,91,717/- are concern....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... So, in these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the AO. Hence, Ground No. 1 determines against the Revenue. Ground no. 2 6. So far as the question of deleting the addition of Rs. 17,16,109/- made by the AO is concerned, the AO has merely disallowed the same, on the ground that the assessee has purchased Marbles at the fag end of month of March and has not been utilized upto 31.03.2010. We are of the considered view of that, when purchasing of Marbles has not been disputed by the AO, addition cannot be made on the basis of assumption that the same has not been utilized upto 31.03.2010 particularly when books of accounts of the assessee have been accepted by the AO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xplanation made by the assessee as to how the rates charged by sister concern are on prevailing market rates. Firstly, AO has not disputed the books of accounts but has simply restricted the Fabrication Expenses to 25% of the sale price only, keeping in view the fact that the profit of the assessee company has been reduced by 3.6% of the sale value. Since, the AO has not disputed the reasonableness of the claim of fabrication charges nor brought on record any details to prove the excessive claim in view of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, the disallowance cannot be made merely on the basis of estimation particularly when there is no fall in the G.P. Rate or Net Profit Rate which is more than the preceding year, which is extracted as under:- ....