Latest Income-Tax Details

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

AO observed that the expenditure was capital-in-nature to set up the business of the assessee and for long term benefit of the project. The expenditure being capital expenditure would not be allowable u/s 37(1). This was further supported by the fact that the basic principle of Matching Concept was not followed by the assessee. quite evident from the financial statements, that the assessee had already set up its business and was undertaking various projects, the expenditure of which was being accumulated under the head Capital Work-in-progress. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT(A) that the business was not set up could not be sustained Keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances, the disallowance as confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) could not be sustained in the eyes of law. By deleting the same, we allow ground no.1 which makes ground no. 2infructuous

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sections 14A, 37 of Income Tax Act, 1961—Business expenditure— Assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 --- The assessee being resident corporate assessee stated to be engaged as builder and developer, was assessed for year under consideration u/s.143(3) on 23/03/2016 wherein income of the assessee after certain disallowances as against returned income of e-filed by the assessee on 26/09/2013. CIT(Appeals) upheld the order of assessing authority. Assessee filed appeal before the tribunal. The tribunal find that the issue of disallowance u/s 14A for AY 2012-13 has already been sent back by the Tribunal to Ld.AO for fresh adjudication. Therefore, with a view of enable the revenue to take consistent stand in the matter, the matter of disallowance u/s 14A would stand remitted back to the file of Ld. AO on similar lines. Facts are pari-materia the same in this year except for the fact that no disallowance has been proposed by Ld. AO u/s 14A. The impugned is common order and the assessee is under appeal with similar grounds of appeal. Therefore, taking the same view, by deleting the additions of indirect expenditure,  The appeal stands partly allowed. --- ALLIANCE MALL DEVELOPERS CO. PVT. LTD. vs. Deputy CIT. [2020] 23 ITCD Online 45 (MUM)