Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The AO from the submissions, he calculated disallowance u/s. 14A of Rs.83,54,360 and the same was disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals).

7. The CIT(Appeals) after considering written submissions and relying on various case laws upheld the order of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

8. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that professional charges paid to Graymatter Solutions LLC, USA was as per Master Service Agreement dated 06.09.2015 for the purpose of providing professional consultancy services in the area of identifying healthcare technology companies, but the transactions were not materialised and the agreement was cancelled by both the parties as per termination agreement dated 16.05.2017. The AO has wrongly noted in his assessment order that the same issue was not in the previous year i.e. AY 2016-17 and he referred to financial statements placed at PB page 23, under direct expenses professional charges of Rs.1,34,16,232 were paid to Graymatter Solutions LLC, USA. He also pointed out that the nature of expenses were verified and it was allowed and in the impugned AY the assessee has also paid the sum net of expenditure as was paid in the previous AY. Accordingly he submitted that the principle of consistency should be applied. He also relied on the jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Onmobile Global Ltd. (2021) 129 taxmann.com 254 (Kar) and submitted that expenditure incurred by the assessee for acquiring/extending new business should be treated as revenue expenditure.