2019 (10) TMI 1600

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ome-tax (Appeals) grossly erred on facts and in law in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 1,36,85,065/- made u/s. 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) grossly erred on facts and in law in sustain the disallowance of Rs. 55,27,111/- holding expenditure to be capital in nature as against the claim of the appellant company to be Revenue in nature. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) grossly erred on facts and in law in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 8,07,800/- under the head Personal expenditure as against the claim of the appellant company treating this expenditure as Business Expenditure. 4. That the appellant ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessee is partly allowed. 6. The Ground No. 2 is against the disallowance of Rs. 55,27,111/- holding the expenditure to be capital in nature. 7. Briefly facts relating to the issue are that the assessee had claimed certain expenditure as revenue expenditure in its hands. The break-up of the expenditure is available at page 5 of the assessment order. The assessee claimed the said expenditure to be incurred for carrying on its business and hence, the claim u/s 37(1) of the Act. The total expenditure is Rs. 61,41,968/-. The Assessing Officer was of the view that incurring of the said expenditure had enduring benefit to the assessee and hence, was capital in nature. He disallowed the said expenditure, but allowed depreciation on the sa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the invoice dated 07.06.2011 has been considered by the Assessing Officer twice, resulting in double addition. Hence, we delete the sum of Rs. 2,51,064/- on this account.  10. The Ld.AR for the assessee further fairly submitted that Item No. 6 i.e. purchase of Teakwood chair totaling to Rs. 10,68,730/- is to be capitalized in the hands of the assessee. In reply to query of the Bench, Ld.AR for the assessee pointed out that expenditure of Rs. 6,27,932/- was against supply and installation of boiler tubes i.e. it was repayment of the earlier boiler tubes and no new asset came into existence. Similar was a plea in respect of electric work totaling to Rs. 24,19,456/- vide invoice dated 28.03.2012. The Ld.AR for the assessee pointed out ....