2018 (8) TMI 1713

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gle" which were treated by the Ld. CIT(A) as revenue in nature while the same were treated as capital in nature by the AO. The Tribunal while disposing of the appeal of the Revenue took up the ground No.3 and 4 together however only ground No.3 was disposed of whereas the ground No.4 was inadvertently left out from being decided and thus there was no finding of the Tribunal on the ground No.4 though both the grounds are of identical nature. The Ld. A.R. submitted that since this is a mistake apparent in the order passed by ITAT within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act and therefore the same should be rectified. 3. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, submitted before the Bench that the Revenue has taken a separate ground as regards tr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sional fees' for a new initiative project called 'EAGLE' (Expansion and Aggressive Growth Through Leadership & Excellence) this payment was made to Accenture Consulting and accounted under the head professional fees. The project EAGLE was launched on 23.07.2008 at Mumbai and is meant for a nationwide transformational growth programme under DISHA umbrella and has been initiated with the help of Accenture Consulting who are global expert in this area. The primary objective of the said project was to re-gain the leadership position in the formulation business and was of revenue in nature as the primary objective is to focus on improving the performance of the company in India. The AO, however, came to the conclusion that purpose of the said ex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 282) (AP); CIT vs. Crompton Engineering Co. Ltd. (242 ITR 317) (Mad); CIT v. JCT Electronics Ltd. (P&H) (ITA 676 of 2009); CIT v. Abbott Laboratories (I) P. Ltd. (202 ITR 819) (Born); EL Forge Ltd. v. DCIT (2013) 216 Taxman 114 (Mad); CIT v. Carborandum Universal Ltd. (2008) 219 CTR 202 (Mad)., the AO is directed to treat the expenditure legal and professional fees amounting to Rs. 3,90,00,000/- as revenue expenditure. 8. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we observe that the object of the project 'EAGLE' was identical to one project 'DISHA' and the expenditures were incurred by way of legal and professional fee paid to Accenture and consultancy a leading firm in that field. The purpose of the project wa....