TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vered in favour of the assessee in the case of ITO vs Samiran Majumdar [2005 (8) TMI 293 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B] wherein it was held that the printer and scanner being integral part of computer systems are entitled for higher rate of depreciation as applicable to the computers. Rejection of assessee’s claim for purchase returns by treating the same as unproved - Held that:- If at all the corresponding purchases had not been recorded by the assesses company in its books of accounts as alleged by the A.O., there was no reason for the assessee company to issue debit notes on account of purchase returns because the same resulted in reduction of expenditure claimed by it on account of purchases. Even the inference drawn by the A.O. about the unaccounted purchases on the basis of debit notes issued by the assessee was totally unfounded as some of such purchases, as noted by the A.O. himself, were made in the immediately preceding year. If the debit notes issued by the assessee on account of purchase returns were found to be unsubstantiated, the expenditure on purchases to that extent would have to be increased and there cannot be made any addition to the total income of the assessee on thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent case is a company which is engaged in the business of trading in printing papers material. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 23.09.2002 declaring a total income of ₹ 3,63,350/-. In the said return, the rental income of ₹ 3,90,000/- received by the assessee company was declared under the head Income from house property . During the course of assessment proceedings, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee in this regard that the property was taken by it on rent from M/s. Print Sales Company on a monthly rent of ₹ 3,000/- and the same was sublet to M/s. Rumteek Finvest Pvt. Ltd. at a monthly license fee of ₹ 30,000/-. The assessee thus was not the owner of the property and the rental income received from the same was accordingly brought to tax by the A.O. under the head Income from other sources instead of income from house property. The deduction claimed by the assessee against the said income on account of rent of ₹ 3,000/- p.m. payable to M/s. Print Sales Company, however, was disallowed by the A.O. on the ground that it was not clear as to whether the said expenditure was actually incurred by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot been pressed by the learned counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing before Tribunal. The same are accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 8. Now, I take up the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2003-04 being ITA No. 1667/K/2017 which is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) 2, Kolkata dated 07.04.2017. The issue involved in ground no 1 relates to the addition of ₹ 3,00,543/- made by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of rejection of assessee s claim for purchase returns by treating the same as unproved. 9. During the year under consideration, the assessee company had raised various debit notes on account of goods returned back to the suppliers. According to the A.O., the assessee company however failed to establish the genuineness of the debit notes claimed to be issued by it. He also held that the assessee company had failed to prove as to whether the corresponding purchases were recorded in its books of accounts or not. He further noted that the time taken by the assessee company to return the goods in some cases was more than one year. According to him, the assessee company thus had tried to suppress its purchases by issuing debit not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,103/- made by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenditure by treating the same as capital in nature. 13. During the course of assessment proceedings, the expenditure claimed by the assessee under the head office and godowns maintenance was examined by the A.O. and on such examination, he found the following expenses aggregating to ₹ 1,29,103/- as capital in nature: SL.No. Date Details of expenditures Amount in Rs. i. 12.05.2002 Paid to KVC Electronics Electricals Pvt.Ltd. for AMC of 4 Cameras 1 Monitor. 3,750.00 ii. 20.11.2002 Paid to P. Paul Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Towards godown rack making charges 54,703.50 iii. 30.11.2002 Paid to S.K. Malik Hossain towards Plywood purchase for godown rack. 21,150.00 iv. 03.12.2002 Amount paid to Sambhu Singh towards sand, cement, bricks purchase for godown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
