ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HOLCIM INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4509/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 October 2015AY 2010-113 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, following a Delhi High Court judgment in the assessee's own case for earlier years which held that the business was set up and had commenced.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared revenue receipts but claimed significant expenses. The AO disallowed these expenses, opining the business was not set up. The CIT(A) deleted this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether expenses incurred for business setup and investment in shares of cement companies are allowable as deduction when the business is considered to have commenced.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : SMC-I : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA
For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR
Hearing: 01.10.2015Pronounced: 06.10.2015

(Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA Respondent by: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 01.10.2015 Date of Pronouncement: 06.10.2015 ORDER

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 30.5.2014 in relation to the Assessment Year 2010-11.

2.

The only issue raised in this appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs.1,55,71,643/-

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee declared revenue receipts of Rs.8,74,667/-. As against that, the assessee claimed deduction for expenses amounting to Rs.1,55,71,643/-. The AO opined that the business of the assessee was not set up and, hence, no deduction could be allowed. He, therefore, made disallowance of Rs.1.55 Crore.

The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. The Revenue is aggrieved against the deletion of the addition.

4.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by relying on the Tribunal order passed in the assessee’s own case for earlier years deciding the issue in the assessee’s favour. The ld. AR invited my attention towards a copy of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the assessee’s own case for the AYs 2007- 08 and 2008-09 in which a categorical finding has been recorded that the business was set up and had commenced. It has further been noticed by the Hon’ble High Court that the assessee was required to incur expenses for the business in the form of investment in shares of cement companies. That is how the deduction was allowed. In view of the fact that the Hon’ble High Court has, in identical circumstances, for assessment years 2007-08 and 200-09, allowed deduction for such expenses, respectfully following the precedent, I also order for the deduction of expenses because no distinguishing facts for the year under consideration vis-à-vis those considered and examined by the Hon’ble High Court, have been brought to my notice by the ld. DR. I, therefore, uphold the impugned order.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →