{"id":46590,"date":"2024-09-22T21:01:50","date_gmt":"2024-09-22T15:31:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/market-committee-v-acit-2024-298-taxman-473-phhc\/"},"modified":"2024-11-20T15:29:23","modified_gmt":"2024-11-20T09:59:23","slug":"market-committee-v-acit-2024-298-taxman-473-phhc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/market-committee-v-acit-2024-298-taxman-473-phhc\/","title":{"rendered":"Market Committee v. ACIT (2024) 298 Taxman 473 \/467 ITR 118   (P&#038;H)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Assessee (Market Committee) paid a certain amount to Haryana State Agricultural Board (Board) and stated that payment had been made to Board on account of development works on its behalf and claimed deduction of same as application of income.\u00a0 Assessing Officer held that\u00a0 payment as repayment of loan taken by assessee from Board for construction of rural roads and held that payment of liability of old loan was not allowable as application of income. Commissioner (Appeals) held that amount had been paid to Board for expenditure which Board had incurred on behalf of assessee and same is\u00a0 allowable as application of income. Tribunal set aside order of Commissioner (Appeals) and restored order of Assessing Officer. On appeal the Court held that\u00a0\u00a0 since receipt issued by Board for aforesaid payment showed that amount was paid for development works and Board had incurred expenditure on development works on account of assessee, payment is made to Board towards statutory functions and it is\u00a0 not for repayment of any loan. Accordingly allowable as a application of income.\u00a0 As the quantum addition is deleted. Penalty order is quashed. (AY. 2007-08)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Payment to Haryana  State Agricultural Board-Statutory functioning-Application of income-Allowable as deduction-Penalty order is quashed as the quantum disallowance is deleted.  [S.260A, 271(1(c)] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-46590","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-c7s","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46590","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=46590"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46590\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":48161,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46590\/revisions\/48161"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46590"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46590"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46590"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}