DCIT 1(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MURJANI RETAIL P.LTD, MUMBAI

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the appeal of the Revenue, the first ground agitated by the Ld. DR is with respect to disallowance made under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) amounting to Rs.1,57,41,631/-. Before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), in its written submissions, the assessee claimed that the impugned amount was not debited to profit & loss account and further was not claimed as expenditure and thus cannot be added under section 43B

C.O. No.142/Mum/2016 M/s Murjani Retail Pvt. Ltd. of the Act. This fact was claimed to be expressly stated in the tax audit report at annexure-VII to clause 21(Business)(i) & (ii). This factual aspect was not controverted by the Revenue. There is uncontroverted finding in the impugned order that such expenses has not been claimed by the assessee, therefore, the addition was rightly deleted, consequently, we affirm the stand of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal).

The next ground raised by the Revenue pertains to disallowance of sum of Rs.1,39,73,469/- on account of rent payment to M/s TAG Enterprises. The Ld. counsel for the assessee, before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), as well as before us, explained that the office space was shared between the assessee and its group affiliates as per clause -14 of the agreement on assignment.

So far as, the cross objection of the assessee is concerned, the crux of the argument on behalf of the assessee is that if the claim of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, the cross objection of the assessee will become in-fructuous. In view of the above, since, the stand taken by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), is affirmed, the cross objection of the C.O. No.142/Mum/2016 M/s Murjani Retail Pvt. Ltd. assessee has become in-fructuous, consequently, dismissed.