TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 875
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowing grounds of appeal: "I. Rent Paid to DRS Industries Ltd. 1. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the rent paid to M/s. DRS Industries contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the rent paid to M/s. DRS Industries hy the Appellant contrary to the acceptance of the Agreement dated 30.06.2010. 3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to note that as per clause 7 of Agreement Dt. 30.06.2010 the Appellant has to pay the rent and the same was paid accordingly. 4. The CIT (Appeals) failed to consider Form 16A for TDS. 5. The Appellant has brought the said rent amount of Rs.32,40,000/under the heading OTHER EXPENSES which reflects in NOTE No. 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Income Tax Return] and such reimbursement is Rs.22,16,664/- [Please Refer NOTE No.15 of the Income Tax Return] which has been separately shown under "OTHER INCOME" in the income returned. Thus, the CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the balance amount of Rs.13,62,695/- [35,79,359-22,16,664]. 12. The CIT (Appeals) failed to note that once the reimbursement of Rs.22,16,664/- is accepted under the heading "OTHER INCOME" accordingly, the entire expenses incurred towards advertisement has to be accepted. 13. The CIT (Appeals) cannot accept the Agreement dated 30.06.2010 in piecemeal and the same has to be accepted entirely. 14. The CIT (Appeals) failed to note that the Agreement is accepted as valid by the same ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no. 1 to 8 of assessee's appeal is disallowance of rent paid to M/s. DRS Industries Ltd. The fact with regard to the impugned dispute are that, the assessee claims to have entered into an agreement with M/s. DRS Industries Ltd for purchase of Skoda cars dealership. As per said agreement between the assessee and M/s. DRS Industries Ltd., from the date of agreement i.e., 30.06.2010, within three months the dealership should be transferred to Miracle Cars India Pvt Ltd., i.e, appellant. Since, the assessee had entered into an agreement for purchase of dealership, it has carried out business of spares sales and services of cars a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reement is not in the name of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering relevant facts has rightly confirmed additions made by the AO and their order should be upheld. 7. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The undisputed facts are that the agreement between the assessee and M/s. DRS Industries Ltd., dated 30.06.2010 did not materialize and consequently, the dealership of Skoda cars sales & services has not been transferred to the assessee. Further, the rent agreement in respect of premises where the business was carried out by M/s. DRS Industries Ltd., was also in the name of M/s. DRS Industries Ltd., and the land lord. Therefore, the question of as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he head 'other income'. The net expenditure incurred for advertisement expenses is about Rs. 13,62,695/-. The AO has disallowed advertisement expenses incurred by the assessee, on the ground that there is no valid agreement between the assessee and M/s. DRS Industries Ltd., for incurring advertisement expenses. The ld. CIT(A) on appeal, allowed relief to the extent of reimbursement got from M/s. DRS Industries Ltd., and balance amount has been sustained. 9. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee rested his arguments on the basis of agreement between the appellant and M/s. DRS Industries Ltd., and argued that the assessee has ....