2024 (8) TMI 747

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeals) is against law and facts. 2. That the Ld. JCIT (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,04,83,778/- made by the Ld. AO/CPC to the total income of the appellant by disallowing all the revenue and capital expenditure claimed by the appellant in its return of income. 3. That the Ld. JCIT (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,04,83,778/-made by the Ld. AO/CPC while processing the return u/s 143(1), although the issues on which disallowances/ additions were made are highly debatable issues and it is not allowable to make such debatable disallowances/additions u/s 143(1). 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, amend or withdraw any of the ground of appeal at the time of hearing." 3. The facts of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uch disallowances, being disputable as non-prima facie adjustments, could not be disallowed in the processing of return under section 143(1) of the Act. It was admitted by the Ld. Counsel that the appellant/assessee was not a registered Trust under section 12AA of the Act. The Ld. Counsel prayed that the income of the appellant/assessee should be assessed under the head 'Income from Other Sources' and consequential deduction should be allowed in accordance with the Section 57 of the Act. In support of the argument, the Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Petroleum Sports Promotion Board, 362 ITR 235. 5. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (In short, the 'Sr.DR') placed emphasis ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n u/s 11 or expenses of capital nature. In view of the above, the CPC was justified in denying exemption u/s 11 and the action of the CPC is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed." 7. The JCIT(A) has nowhere held in the impugned order that the revenue expenditure claimed by the appellant/assessee to earn income are not allowable expenditure. The JCIT(A) has categorically held that the appellant/ assessee is not eligible to claim exemption u/s 11 or expenses of capital nature. We are of the considered view that the finding 'it is not eligible to claim exemption under section 11 of the Act' does not mean that the appellant/assessee is not eligible to claim revenue expenditure incurred excl....