Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 531 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance Warranty provisions - The assessee, prior to the receipt of the order of the Settlement Commission, in its original return had reversed the excess provision made for the earlier years against the provision for the impugned assessment year - Not filed a revised return - Deletion of disallowance paid to one Shri Pawar - Deletion of disallowance of interest - Held that :- We find much substance in the claim of the assessee that Settlement Commission’s order dated 24.3.2008 might not have been readily available to the assessee by 31.3.2008, being the last date available for filing a revised return. It was therefore left with no other go other than to file a revised computation. Assessing Officer has not disputed that the above amount could not be considered as income of the assessee for impugned assessment year, but, disallowed claim for withdrawal only for a reason that revised return was not filed. Regarding deletion of dissallowance set aside the orders of ld. - CIT(Appeals) and A.O. in this regard and remit the issue back to A.O. for verifying the claim with evidence produced by the assessee in support of the claim. If the assessee is able to prove that the claim was based on invoices raised by Shri Pawar and if the transactions are genuine, it will have to be allowed irrespective of the treatment given by Shri Pawar in his books. The A.O. shall give an opportunity to the assessee for proving its case. Regarding disallowance of Interest, the loans were given to subsidiary companies. Also, without doubt, such subsidiary companies were all in Karnataka and had acquired lands for the purpose of erection of wind farms and the assessee’s business was to erect, commission and sell windmills. In our opinion, commercial interest of the assessee in its subsidiaries stood well demonstrated. - ld. CIT(Appeals) was well justified in relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders [2006 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT] for deleting the disallowance. - Decided against the revenue. Regarding deletion of disallowance of advance written off by the assessee - the claim of advance itself cannot be accepted when by assessee’s own version, its transactions of purchase from M/s Sambhav Steel Distributors were all bogus. - assessee cannot be allowed to approbate and re-approbate. It cannot say that the purchases were all bogus but, advances were genuine. - It cannot say purchases were bogus only for Settlement Commission but, these were true when the matter comes before the Tribunal. - Decided in favor of revenue.
|