Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 841 - ITAT MUMBAISuppression of sales - suppression of production of biscuits in Mumbai Unit - assessee’s Contract Manufacturing Units(CMUs) have given average yield of 90.26%. Whereas, the assessee has shown the yield of biscuits at its own unit at Mumbai @ 82.92% - HELD THAT:- As compared to the yield of Mumbai unit in the preceding assessment years as noted above, the assessee has shown a higher yield for the Mumbai unit in the impugned assessment year. Therefore, on over all consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that rejection of books of account and addition made on estimate basis alleging suppression of sale is not in accordance with law. Therefore, even a part of addition made by the AO cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we delete the addition made by the AO fully. Disallowance of depreciation on plant and machinery - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2017 (12) TMI 298 - ITAT MUMBAI] and [2018 (1) TMI 1077 - ITAT MUMBAI] Tribunal has allowed assessee’s claim. Undisputedly, learned CIT(A) has allowed the claim of deprecation in consonance with the order passed by the tribunal in assessment year 1996–97. That being the case, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of learned CIT(A) on the issue. Accordingly, ground raised is dismissed. Accrual of income - treating the amount received towards trademark, non–compete fee, etc., as revenue receipts - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Fernhill Laboratories and Industrial Establishment [2012 (7) TMI 463 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that sale of self-generated trademark is not chargeable to capital gain tax prior to 1st April 2002. It is further relevant to observe, while deciding identical issue in case of Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (8) TMI 881 - ITAT MUMBAI] for the very same assessment year, learned CIT(A), vide order dated 30th March 2015, has held that the amount received towards non–compete fee and trade mark cannot be treated as income either u/s 28(va) or subjected to capital gain tax. Pertinently, the Revenue has accepted the aforesaid decision of learned CIT(A). Thus, on overall consideration of facts and material on record, we are of the view that the amount received by the assessee towards trademark and non–compete fee being a capital receipt is not taxable. Therefore, the decision of learned CIT(A) on the issue is sustained, though, on the basis of our independent reasoning. Ground raised is dismissed. Suppression of sales of biscuits and confectionary - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, there was a difference between the sales figures as reflected in RT–12 statement and the books of account of the assessee. Though, the assessee has tried to explain the difference by attributing it to inter–depot transfer and destruction of goods, however, fact remains that the assessee has not been able to reconcile the difference with supporting evidence. In these circumstances, the decision of learned CIT(A) in sustaining the addition to the extent of 0.05% of the total turnover is reasonable, hence, it does not require interference from this forum. This ground is dismissed. Disallowance on account of foreign travel expenses - HELD THAT:- No doubt, while deciding assessee’s appeal in the assessment year 1996–97, the Tribunal has upheld part disallowance of foreign travel expenses. However, in assessment year 1997–98, it was argued by the assessee that the foreign travel expenses incurred was not only for directors but also for other employees purely for business purpose. Considering the submissions of the assessee, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO [2018 (1) TMI 1077 - ITAT MUMBAI] . Before us also, learned Authorised Representative has submitted that facts involved in the impugned assessment year are similar to assessment year 1997–98. In view of the aforesaid, we restore the issue to the AO for denovo adjudication.
|