TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1817
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovision of the Act by making disallowance of claim made by assessee u/s 35(1)(ii), payment of brand equity subscription, building repair and commission expenses. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of both the parties partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now before us, the revenue as well as assessee have filed their respective appeals I.T.A. No. 3847/Mum/2014 (AY 2009-10) 5. First of all we take up revenue's appeal in ITA No. 3847Mum/2014(AY 2009-10).The grounds of appeal are mentioned herein below:- 1. The order of the CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow expenditure of Rs. 52,17,597/- by holding that the only requirement for claiming expenses is that it should be incurred on research related activities and should be revenue in nature without appreciating that the assessee failed to furnish supporting documentary evidences to establish that the expenditure were made towards the Research & Development activities. 3. For these and other grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee has furnished necessary documents, which were furnished before the AO and after appreciating the documents had concluded that the expenses incurred by the assessee were on the improvement of the designs of the existing machinery. Ld. AR also submitted that during the year under consideration, the assessee has undertaken the projects relating to improving standard machine category and in this respect relevant documents evidencing various phases of activities carried in improving the standard machine have been categorized while submission dated 2.12.11. It was further submitted that the said written submissions were also submitted before Ld. CIT(A). After appreciating the submissions made by both the parties, Ld. CIT(A) concluded that the assessee had expended research related developments for the purpose of business. Therefore, necessary directions were given to the AO for verifying the details of the expenditure. On the contrary Ld. DR could not point out any defect from the documents annexed in paper book. No new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld CIT (A). Therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ought to have deleted the excess interest charged under section 234C of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or substitute all or any of the aforesaid ground of appeal. Ground No. 1. 8. This ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in not allowing deduction u/s 35 of the Act in respect of research and development expenses or in alternative to allow expenses u/s 37(1) of the Act. 9. Since, we have already decided identical ground in ITA No. 3847/Mum/14 for AY 2009-10 filed by the revenue as ground no. 1. Therefore, following our own decision in the aforementioned appeal, we apply the same findings in the present appeal which is applicable mutatis mutandi. Resultantly this ground of appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Ground No. 2 10. This ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance for repairs to leased building by disregarding provisions of section 30/37 of the Act. 11. Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee has incurred expenses towards repairs on leased premises. The assessee further claimed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the assessee are allowable u/s 30 of the Act. Resultantly, this ground is allowed. Ground NO. 3. 13. This ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of commission expenses paid by the assessee. 14. Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that assessee has paid commission of Rs. 42,59,211/- in connection with the business carried out by the assessee. It was further submitted that a sum of Rs. 18,48,636/- paid as commission was disallowed by the AO and upheld by Ld. CIT(A). Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had paid commission in accordance with the agreement entered into with the party as the said commission charges have been paid based on the orders which were received by the assessee through the efforts of said commission agents. It was also submitted that since the commission agent had rendered services for which they raised invoices and thereafter the company has paid such commission after deduction of applicable withholding tax and issued TDS certificate. It was also submitted that all payments of commission were made through banks. 15. We have heard the counsels for both the parties a....