Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
com
C/TAXAP/2/2020 ORDER
==========================================================
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1
Versus
ADANI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
Date : 20/01/2020
ORAL ORDER
1 This Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
[for short, 'the Act, 1961'] is at the instance of the Revenue and is
directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
'C' Bench, Ahmedabad dated 4th July 2019 in the ITA
No.2006/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 201213.
[B] Whether Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting
Page 1 of 3
C/TAXAP/2/2020 ORDER
the disallowance of Rs.21,98,169/ being Capital Expenditure?”
3 We are inclined to take into consideration the question No.2[A],
but, after reframing the question. Question No.2[A], as proposed by the
Revenue, is reframed as under:
“Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in holding that
the disallowance visavis the administrative expenses incurred under
Section 14A of the Act, 1961 cannot exceed the expenditure claimed by the
assessee?
4 Although the Revenue wants this Court to go into the question of
disallowance of the interest amount, yet we are not inclined to go into
such question.
5 So far as the question No.2[B], as proposed by the Revenue, is
concerned, we take notice of the findings recorded by the Tribunal as
contained in para 13.1 of the impugned order. Para 13.1 reads thus:
“As regards professional fees component of Rs.21,98,169/ disputed by the
Revenue, we find that CIT(A) has observed that such expenditure has been
incurred for legal assistance taken by the assessee on daytoday basis for
the purposes of business. Such expenditure in our view has been rightly
treated as revenue expenditure by the CIT(A). the Ground No.2 of the
Revenue's appeal thus is without any merit.”
6 Thus, there is a concurrent finding recorded by both CIT(Appeals)
and as affirmed by the Tribunal that the expenditure has been incurred
for the legal assistance taken by the assessee on daytoday basis for the
purpoe of business. Such expenditure has been treated as revenue
expenditure. We are not inclined to admit this appeal on the question
Page 2 of 3
C/TAXAP/2/2020 ORDER
No.2[B], as proposed by the Revenue. This appeal stands dismissed so
far as the question No.2[B] is concerned.
(J. B. PARDIWALA, J)
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
CHANDRESH
Page 3 of 3