TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1607
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y for the specified business by ignoring the facts of the case which were brought on record by the assessing officer. 2. On facts & in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in omitting the verification with respect to the determination, of amount of expenditure which were incurred wholly and exclusively for the specified business as mandated under section 35AD(1) of the Act, however prima facie it apparent from was the modus- operandi of the assessee as well as the information available on the website of the assessee that the godowns of the assessee weren't strictly used for storing agricultural produce or sugar as specified under section 35AD(8)(c) of the Act and allowed deduction under section 35AD of the Act by circumventing the section 35AD(1)of the Act. 3. On facts & in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction under section 35AD of the Act as due to absence of the details of godowns of the assessee which were only used for storage of agricultural produce and sugar as specified under section 35AD(8)(c) of the Act, all the godowns are prima-facie appearing to be not strictly used for storage of agricultural pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iod of time. Captioned expenditure incurred by the assessee is in relation to an income which may be earned by the assessee in subsequent years and it is settled position of law in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY in the case of RPG Enterprises Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax, Circle 5(6), Mumbai [2016] [71 taxmann.com 137 (Bombay)] vide order dated 29.06.2016 that the said expense is capital expense and the whole expenditure cannot be allowed to be booked in the year of expenditure. 8. On facts & in the circumstances of the case, the IT(A) is erred in stating that the assessing officer acted illegally when the question of law has not been decided either by Jurisdictional High Court or the Apex Court and the facts and circumstances might differ for year to year and CIT(A) hasn't stated facts and therefore has passed a non-speaking order without deciding or bringing the facts on record to support the contention of allowing assessee's claim. 9. On facts & in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is erred in allowing the appeal of the Assessee without verification of facts and circumstances of expenses booked and me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income of the assessee at loss of Rs.19.45 crores from specified business and consequently the claim of the assessee for depreciation/deduction u/s 35AD was denied. He has relied upon the order of the AO. 4. On the other hand Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the deduction u/s 35AD has been claimed by the assessee on the income from specified business only. He has produced bifurcated details of income from specified business and other than specified business and submitted that the assessee has calculated deduction u/s 35AD based on the income from specified business. He has further submitted that the AO has estimated the income of the assessee from specified business on the basis of the report available from the website of the assessee regarding the nature of business and by ignoring books of accounts and relevant detail of actual business activities and income of the assessee. He has submitted that out of the total quantity of warehousing of the product 97.47% belongs to agricultural produce including food grains, sugar and pulses and only 2.53% were other than agricultural produce for which the assesse has furnished the details. 5. We have considered rival submissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee has debited a sum of Rs.2,35,67,955/- in the profit and loss account under the head salary and other expenses (construction) which shows that the salary expenditure is for construction of godown/warehousing and therefore, it is a capital expenditure not allowable u/s 37 of the Act. He has relied upon the order of the AO. 7. On the other hand, Ld. AR has submitted that this issue is covered by the decision of this tribunal in assesse's own case for A.Ys.2005-06 to 2008-09, 2010-11 to 2011-12. Further for A.Y.2012-13 an identical issue has been considered by the CIT(A) and allowed the claim of the assessee. Thus, he has submitted that the CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee by following earlier decision of this tribunal. 8. We have considered rival submission as well as relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that an identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal in assesse's own case for A.Ys.2005-06 to 2008-09,2010-11 to 2011-12. The CIT(A) has considered this issue in para 5.12 & 5.13 as under: "5.12 Secondly issue (Ground No.5 & 6) is the observation of the A.O. that the company has debited an amount of Rs.2,35,67,995/- under the h....