2019 (9) TMI 858

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 11/02/2013 by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax - 9(2), Mumbai(hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in confirming the action of the ld AO of treating the entire expenditure of Rs. 1,09,84,625/- debited to profit and loss account as expenditure pertaining to commercial project and capitalized to work in progress, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate development of hotel, retail, mall, information technology park and other high quality commercial segments and had filed the return of income....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Audit and Tax Audit fees 5 Project support fees (non-technical) 41,35,560 Administrative charges, HR Accounting, Finance. Payroll, taxation etc. 6 Travelling and conveyance 11,56,447 Routine travel and related expenses 7 Communication costs 37,713 Telephone charges 8 Repairs and maintenance 4,43,785 Various AMC & internet charges at corporate office 9 Audit fees 7,49,488 Statutory Audit Fees 10 Royalty charges 17,35,524 For use of name and logo 11 Bank charges 48,202 Routine bank charges 12 Subscription charges 56,500 Subscription to Export promotion council and business association 13 Advertisement and Publicity expenses 5,29,524 M....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... undertaken by the assessee from the earlier years and had not been completed during the year under consideration. The aforesaid treatment of expenditure i.e partly towards capital work in progress in respect of direct project related expenses and partly towards revenue expenditure in respect of routine administrative expenses has been consistently followed by the assessee in the earlier years also and the same stand was taken by the assessee during the year under consideration. We find that there is no reason for the ld AO to take a divergent stand with regard to the treatment of expenditure given by the assessee in the books which is similar to treatment for income tax purposes also. In any case, we find that these administrative expenses....