2018 (10) TMI 1671

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er For the Appellant : Shri R. Viswanathan, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT ORDER PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 11, Chennai dated 14.11.2017 relevant to the assessment year 2009-10. The only effective ground raised in the appeal of the assessee i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ome of the assessee at Rs..5,55,560/-. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee as well as facts of the case, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By relying on the decision in the case of CIT v. L.G.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ness activities. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee's claim of ROC fees. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the ROC fees paid for increase in authorized share capital of a company is a capital expenditure in nature and hence cannot be allowed as an allowable deduction. 6.1 In the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT 225 ITR 792 as ....