Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED CIT v. DLF Commercial Developers Ltd. 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1227 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Eicher Motors Ltd. v. CIT 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4495 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Cyber Pearl Information Technology Park (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0852 (Mad-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. DLF Universal Ltd. 2015 TaxPub(DT) 2183 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT 2015 TaxPub(DT) 2180 (SC)
REFERRED Ashish Plastic Industries v. Asstt. CIT 2015 TaxPub(DT) 2067 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. 2013 TaxPub(DT) 2414 (SC)
REFERRED Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT & Ors. 2011 TaxPub(DT) 2171 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Modipon Ltd. (No. 1) 2011 TaxPub(DT) 2053 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. v. CIT 2011 TaxPub(DT) 0093 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Asstt. CIT v. Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd. 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1776 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED CIT v. Doom Dooma India Ltd. 2009 TaxPub(DT) 1470 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 2009 TaxPub(DT) 1275 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED CIT Central v. J.K. Charitable Trust Kamal Tower 2009 TaxPub(DT) 1022 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Shri Ram Pistons & Rings Ltd. 2008 TaxPub(DT) 1988 (Del-HC)
REFERRED DLF Office Developers v. Asstt. CIT 2008 TaxPub(DT) 1943 (Del-Trib)
REFERRED Dy. CIT v. Thakker Developers 2008 TaxPub(DT) 1718 (Pune-Trib)
REFERRED Dy. CIT v. Core Health Care Ltd. 2008 TaxPub(DT) 1621 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Neha Builders (P) Ltd. 2008 TaxPub(DT) 0294 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED In Re Jasbir Singh Sarkaria 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1480 (AAR)
REFERRED Nokia Corporation v. DIT (International Taxation) & Anr. 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1239 (Del-HC)
REFERRED S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) & Anr. 2007 TaxPub(DT) 0833 (SC)
REFERRED Joint CIT v. K. Raheja (P) Ltd. 2006 TaxPub(DT) 0457 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT 2003 TaxPub(DT) 1233 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Lokhandwala Construction Inds. Ltd. 2003 TaxPub(DT) 0916 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. v. CIT 2002 TaxPub(DT) 0492 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Sterling Foods 1999 TaxPub(DT) 1271 (SC)
REFERRED Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT 1997 TaxPub(DT) 1209 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Goyal Gases (P) Ltd. 1991 TaxPub(DT) 0232 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Park View Enterprises v. State Government of Tamil Nadu 1991 TaxPub(DT) 0142 (Mad-HC)
REFERRED India Cements Ltd. v. CIT 1966 TaxPub(DT) 0278 (SC)
REFERRED Calico Dyeing & Printing Works v. CIT 1958 TaxPub(DT) 0155 (Bom-HC)
 
The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 4028 (Del-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 37(1)

Where there was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and revenue could not controvert the fact of any expenditure with instances that these were not incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business of the assessee and there was as such, deletion of addition by CIT(A) was, therefore, justified.

Business expenditure - Overhead expenses - Alleged short allocation of overhead to SEZ division - Wholly and exclusive expenses for business purpose

With respect to the deletion of addition on account of disallowance of deduction for short allocation of overheads to SEZ Division both the parties agreed that the CIT(A) has deleted the identical addition on this issue for assessment year 2008-09 and which had been confirmed by the coordinate Bench in assessee's own case. Further the authorised representative submitted that the Department had not preferred any appeal against the order of the coordinate Bench for that assessment year and therefore, same should be followed. CIT(A) relying upon the decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Nestle India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 27 SOT 9 (Del) had deleted the addition. Held: It was found that this issue was covered at page No. 138 at para No. 125 vide ground No. 12 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2008-09 wherein the coordinate Bench allowed the issue in favour of the assessee following the order of the coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for assessment year 2006-07. The advertisements, salary and wages, leave encashment expenditure and printing expenses, etc. were all pertaining to the business of the company. No evidence/instances have been cited by AO that any of this expenditure had not been incurred by the company and they were not related to the business of the assessee. There was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and revenue could not controvert the fact of any expenditure with instances that these were not incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business of the assessee. Hence, the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition was, therefore, confirmed.

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. : 2010-11


INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 143(3)

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

TaxPublishers.in

'Kedarnath', 7, Avadh Vihar, Near Nirali Dhani,

Chopasni Road

Jodhpur - 342 008 (Rajasthan) INDIA

Phones : 9785602619 (11 am - 5 pm)

E-Mail : mail@taxpublishers.in / mail.taxpublishers@gmail.com