|The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 4028 (Del-Trib)
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
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.
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2010-11
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT