Ascendas It Park (Pune) Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed
ITA 966/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14
Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.966/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ascendas It Park (Pune) Vs. Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Private Limited, Pune. Unit No.607 & 608, 6Th Floor, Amar Business Park, Survey No.105 (3), Baner, Pune- 411045. Pan : Aafca4840E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Chandni Shah Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 31.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal :- “Ground 1: Treating General Management Fees Paid By The Appellant To Be Capital In Nature On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action
For Appellant: Smt. Chandni ShahFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)
…also the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Asahi India Safety Glass, 15 taxmann.com 4 382 (Delhi) and the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Oriental Carpet Manufactures (India) P. Ltd., 86 ITR 543 (P&H). It was also pleaded that similar expenditure incurred in the earlier years was allowed as revenue expenditure and, therefore, on the principle of consistency, the same should be allowed as revenue expenditure placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RadhasoamiSatsang vs. CIT, 193 ITR 321 (SC) and the deci…
