TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 216
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation. 2. Ground No.2 raised by the assessee reads as under:- ''2. Disallowance of Share Issue Expenditure- Rs. 1,19,672/- a. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure incurred in increasing the Share capital is not deductible u/s 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. b. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that, fees paid to Registrar of companies is for the purpose of increasing the Share capital for extension of industrial unit. c. Further, the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that sec 35D also applies for such substantial expansion of undertaking. d. The learned ClT(A) having admitted that there was an expansion of industrial undertaking erred in holding that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o clarify whether the expansion claimed by the assessee had happened before 1st April, 2006 or after the said date. Once the assessee is claiming that there was an expansion of industrial undertaking, onus lies on the assessee to prove such claim. Assessee having failed to do so, we are of the opinion that lower authorities were justified in denying the claim u/s.35D of the Act. Ground No.2 of the assessee stands dismissed. 6. Ground No.3 raised by the assessee reads as under:- ''3. Disallowance of excise duty element on warranty - Rs. 18,10,764/- a. The learned CIT(A) erred in wrongly understanding that the debit in respect of excise duty for materials issued on warranty constitutes provision and not actual expenditure....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duty thereon to the exchequer. Once the assessee had effected payment of the excise tax, in our opinion assessee could not have been denied the claim u/s.43B of the Act. We therefore set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allow the claim of C18,10,764/-, being excise tax paid on warranty goods. Ground No.3 of the assessee stands allowed. 10. When ground No.4 is taken, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he was not pressing this ground. Accordingly, ground No.4 is dismissed as not pressed. 11. Ground No.5 raised by the assessee reads as under:- ''5. Disallowance of Prior period Items -Rs.3,92,473/- a. The Prior period items consists of the sales tax payment of Rs. 2,23,903/- and Rs.l,68,570/- pertai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment''. Even before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it seems, assessee did not provide any details. Now the claim before us is that part of the expenditure was sales tax dues actually paid during the previous year relevant to the impugned assessment year. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the issue can be verified afresh by the ld. Assessing Officer. We set aside the orders of the authorities on the issue of allowability of the claim of prior period expenditure of C3,92,473/- and remit it back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for consideration afresh in accordance with law. Ground No.5 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Ground No.6 of the assessee reads a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowance for expenditure towards gift is reproduced hereunder:- ''I perused the list of ledger break-up of gift expenses provided by the appellant during the appeal proceedings in the paper book. The entries show wide range of debits varying from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 1,OO,OOO/- without any details, except 'TRFR TO GIFT', 'GIFT FOR CUSTOMER', 'DIWALI GIFT', ''TRFR FROM MISC. EXP'', TRFR FROM ENTERT, GIFT EXP. DBTD TO SALES PRO-TSFRD', 'WEDDING GIFT', MARRIAGE GIFT', 'GIFT FOR VENDOR', etc. On 31.03.2006 alone amongst so many other debit entries pertaining to Gift, amounts of Rs. 1,89,380/-, Rs. 3,51,093/-, Rs. 1,OO,OOO/-, Rs. 75,OOO/- and Rs. 50,OOO/- have also been shown as Gift expenses.....