TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 196
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Appeal. 29.01.2024 ASR is submitted to the O/o PCIT-2, Kolkata through proper channel 16.02.2024 Certificate of filing 2nd appeal was received from the O/o Pr. CIT-2, Kolkata 06.12.2024 Necessary hardcopies of documents/paper/details required for filing 2nd Appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared. 11.12.2024 2nd Appeal was filed. It is respectfully submitted that the appeal could not be filed on or before due date due to an immense work load relating to assessment, penalties and writ petition filed by the various assessee in the Calcutta High Court against the order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148, as well as collecting and arranging the required documents/files for the 2nd appeal. Therefore, it is request....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....100% depreciation of Rs. 77,46,502/- on hoarding ignoring the fact that an iron made hoarding has an enduring benefit. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in allowing prior period expenses of Rs. 33,08,095/- which is not allowable as per Act. 5. The CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s 80IA of Rs. 49,51,324/- merely relied on the earlier decisions in the case of the assessee, ignoring the provision of the Act and without going deep into the matter of the case. 6. The appellant craves leave to make any amend, addition, alternation, modification etc. of the grounds either before the appellate proceedings, or in the course of appellate proceedings." 3.0 Before us the Ld. DR read out from various portions of the Ld. AO's order and supported th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Hon'ble Calcutta High Court [ITA 362/2009, dated 9th February 2023,] where similar issues were dealt with. Finally, regarding the issue of claim u/s 80IA of the Act, it was stated that the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in assessee's own case [ITA 362/2009] [ dated 9th February 2023]. 4.0 We have considered the rival submissions and have carefully perused the documents before us. Regarding the issue of interest on TDS, we find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Coordinate Bench order in the case of Welkin Telecom Infra (supra). Relevant extract in Para 38 of ITAT's order is as under: "38. We have heard both the parties and perused the judici....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of 'income-tax' as defined for the purposes of section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. Instead the TDS deducted and paid on the business expenditure and is thus a deductible item u/s 37 of the Act. Following the ITAT's order (supra), this issue is decided against the Revenue. 4.1 Regarding the issue of sales promotion expenses of Rs. 2,28,885/-, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order as under: CIT(A)'s Findings (para 10): "In this case, AO did not specifically point out any deficiency in claim of expenditure except stating that they were internally vouched. Disallowance of expenditure u/s 37(1) is warranted only if assessee is unable to establish that such expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rit on this issue of the departmental appeal." 4.3 Ground No. 4 pertaining to allowing of prior period expenses of Rs. 33,08,095/-, is seen to be covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as the Ld. CIT(A)'s order is supported by the decision in assessee's own case before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court [ITA 362/2009 [dated 9th February 2023,] where similar issues were dealt with. Relevant extract from High Court decision (pages 1-3 of the order): "B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing expenditure for the period prior to Assessment year 2004-05? With regard to the second substantial question of law, the issue is once again covered by the decisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal considered the fact and have returned the finding on merits. The Revenue's contention is that the assessee is only an advertising firm putting banner for their own purpose and, therefore, the question of claiming of any deduction under section 80IA of the Act would not arise. This appears to be factually incorrect as is seen from the order passed by the CIT [A] as well as the Tribunal where the Tribunal has clearly held that the assessee is engaged in infrastructure development which involves construction of foot over bridge as well as the bus shelter and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80IA of the Act. The Tribunal followed the decision of this Court in....