TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 1158
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... raised by the Revenue are not adjudicated by the Tribunal. 2. After hearing both sides vide order dated 26/07/2022 in M.A. Nos. 338-340/Ahd/2019, the above order was being recalled to adjudicate the grounds namely NAA charges Payment and Infrastructure up gradation charges. 2.1. In ITA No. 1020/Ahd/2014, these are two grounds which is not adjudicated by the Tribunal are as follows : "....4. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law in allowing the NA charges of Rs.82,08,000/-being the capital expenditure. 5. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of infrastructure upgradation charges of Rs.4,40,70,975/- by ignoring that the assessee has made such a claim before it had rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g that it is a charge paid towards conversion of Agricultural land to Non Agriculture. The AO has misinterpreted the nature of expenditure. As per appellant's submission, the charges paid towards Non-agricultural assessment and payable to government on yearly basis. Thus the expenditure incurred is business expenditure and is of recurring nature and revenue in nature. Therefore the addition made, considering the expenses incurred for conversion of land from agriculture to non-agriculture is not correct. The AO is therefore, directed to delete the addition made on this count. 4. Similarly, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on account of Infrastructure up gradation charges are as follows: 8.1 The AO has held that expendi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The necessary reply and supporting papers are on pages 93, 117 to 112 and 128 and 129 of paper book. 8.3 I have gone through the fact of the case, assessment order, submission made by appellant. From the assessment order, I find that appellant has put all the facts before the AO during the assessment proceeding. However, the AO has failed to consider the same. The expenditure claimed by the GIDC by way of reimbursement along with annual rent NAA charges. However, the said expenditure was waived by GIDC after 11 month i.e. in the next financial year and accordingly the appellant credited its P&L considering the same as income in AY 2011-12, as letter of GIDC was received in February, 2011 i.e. FY 2010-11. The AO has discus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us the amount reimbursed is not a lease rent or could be treated as part of lease rent. 6.1. Thus the Ld. A.R. pleaded that the Ld. CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer which is a business expenditure and which is of recurring in nature and a revenue receipt. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. The Ld. CIT-DR could not bring before us any contra facts as recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) and no materials is also placed before us to the finding of the Assessing Officer. In absence of the same, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of NAA charges. 7.1. In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue is d....