Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai

M/S. Camiceria Apparels India Pvt. ... vs Acit, Chennai on 12 September, 2018

            आयकर अपील
य अ धकरण,          'सी'  यायपीठ, चे नई

               IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                          'C' BENCH, CHENNAI
                  ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन,  या यक सद य एवं
                 ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद य केसम%

        BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
        SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                  आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.93/Chny/2014
                 नधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year : 2007-08

M/s Camiceria Apparels India
                       Pvt. Ltd.,
(Now known as Evolv Clothing                  The Assistant Commissioner
Company Pvt. Ltd.)                       v.   of Income Tax,
C/o M/s Subbaraya Aiyar                       Company Circle - 1(3),
Padmanabhan & Ramamani                        Chennai - 600 034.
Advocates, New No.75 (Old No.105A),
Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

PAN : AAACC 9743 M
   (अपीलाथ+/Appellant)                        (,-यथ+/Respondent)

 अपीलाथ+ क. ओर से/Appellant by : Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
 ,-यथ+ क. ओर से/Respondent by :    Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar,
                                                        Addl.CIT

       सन
        ु वाई क. तार
ख/Date of Hearing          : 13.08.2018
       घोषणा क. तार
ख/Date of Pronouncement : 12.09.2018


                           आदे श /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (C) - II, dated 20.11.2013 and pertains to assessment year 2007-08. 2 I.T.A. No.93/Chny/14

2. The first issue arises for consideration is disallowance of ₹14,75,570/-.

3. We heard Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee and Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, the Ld. Departmental Representative. Admittedly, this expenditure of ₹14,75,570/- was classified by the assessee itself as pre-paid expenses. As rightly observed by the CIT(Appeals), it is a provision for expenditure which is unascertained. Therefore, it cannot be allowed during the year under consideration. Hence, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.

4. The next issue arises for consideration is grant of deduction under Section 10B of the Act.

5. We heard Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee and Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, the Ld. Departmental Representative. The CIT(Appeals) by placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Shri Nagesh Chundur v. CIT dated 19.08.2013, found that the period of ten years is to be reckoned from the year in which the undertaking started 3 I.T.A. No.93/Chny/14 manufacturing of the products. In view of the above, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.

6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the court on 12th September, 2018 at Chennai.

            sd/-                                           sd/-
    (ए. मोहन अलंकामणी)                            (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन)
  (A. Mohan Alankamony)                            (N.R.S. Ganesan)
लेखा सद य/Accountant Member                  या यक सद य/Judicial Member

चे नई/Chennai,
                    th

4दनांक/Dated, the 12 September, 2018.

Kri.

आदे श क. , त5ल6प अ7े6षत/Copy to:

1. अपीलाथ+/Appellant
2. ,-यथ+/Respondent
3. आयकर आयु8त (अपील)/CIT(A)(C) -II, Chennai
4. CIT, Chennai-I, Chennai
5. 6वभागीय , त न ध/DR
6. गाड' फाईल/GF.