Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 517 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance – Disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) - Held that:- before making any disallowance u/s 14A, AO must record satisfaction having regard to accounts of Assessee that claim of Assessee that expenditure incurred is not related to income forming part of total income is incorrect - AO only discussed provisions of Sec. 14A(1) and has not made out any satisfaction – No whisper which proves that AO was not satisfied with correctness of claim of Assessee in respect of expenditure which Assessee claims to have incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income having regard to accounts of Assessee - AO instead of discharging his obligation, straightaway applied Rule 8D and made disallowance - Case of Assessee is covered by decision in case of Sesa Goa Ltd. vs. JCIT [2013 (9) TMI 233 - ITAT PANAJI] - Delete disallowance made u/s 14A – Decided in favour of Assessee. CIT(A) confirmed addition of Rs. 6,98,926/- made by AO on account of difference in creditor account in spite of providing reconciliation before AO – Held that:- details of deposit account kept by Assessee over period of time from 1999 to 2008 for by passing minimum Franchise payable to M/s. Hiralal Khodidas - It is fact that Assessee has debited sum of Rs. 6 lacs and Rs. 1 lac on 23.3.1999 and 31.3.2001 - If credit of these amounts is given by M/s. Hiralal Khodidas, there will be just negligible difference - In view of fact delete the addition – Decided in favour of Assessee. Addition made on account of unpaid sundry creditors - CIT(A) confirmed disallowance amounting to Rs.2,52,064/- Held that:- Assessee did not produce any evidence except relying on provisions of Sec. 41(1) that liability has not ceased and that until liability is not ceased, sum of Rs.2,52,064/- cannot be treated to be income of Assessee - Sum of Rs. 30 lacs included in Sundry Creditors as on 31.3.2009 has been paid by Assessee to M/s. Mayur Minerals - In view of this undisputed fact, confirm deletion of addition by CIT(A) to extent of Rs. 30 lacs - So far balance sum of Rs. 2,52,064/- is concerned, no evidence has been filed by Assessee whether these creditors still exist - Assessee has also not written off these creditors so that it may be treated as cessation of liability and made chargeable to tax u/s 41(1) - Assessee has not even given dates as well as addresses of these parties so that it can be ascertained whether Sundry Creditors are genuine or not – No interfere with order of CIT(A) confirming addition of Rs.2,52,064/- - Confirm addition of Rs. 2,52,064/- as well as deletion of addition of Rs. 30 lacs – Decided partly in favour of Assessee. Bad Debts written off pertaining to ex-staff and others – Held that:- not denied by Revenue that Rajendra S. Kakodkar was an employee of Assessee - Advances were given by Assessee during course of business - These advances have not been recovered by Assessee - Rajendra S. Kakodkar has left services of Assessee and is no more an employee of Assessee - Under these facts, Assessee has written off advance - So far as other advances are concerned, other advances were given by Assessee company during course of business for purpose of business of Assessee - Since advances could not be recovered, Assessee has written off these advances - Advances are under facts and circumstances of case, incidental to business of Assessee and are allowable u/s 29 as loss incidental to business – Decided partly in favour of Assessee. Sustenance of addition on account of handling loss – Held that:- force in submission of ld. AR that ore which is to be transported from Colomba mine to Cuddegal plant had to travel about 36 kms. and it is quite natural that some loss is incurred during transit and during handling of ore - Cannot be said that there cannot be any loss - Assessee is maintaining regular books of accounts - Stock record has duly been maintained - There is no allegation that Assessee has sold iron ore outside books of accounts - Under these facts and circumstances of case, loss has to be accepted as being incidental to business – Decided in favour of Assessee. Sustenance of addition of Rs.42,93,066/- by CIT(A) – Held that:- not denied by Revenue authorities that there has to be ground loss when iron ore has to be handled - It is also not denied that distance between Cuddegal to Capxem and Cuddegal to Maina and Capxem to Berth no. 9 and Maina to Berth no. 9 are different - Handling loss and loss in transit are bound to vary due to distance - No thumb rule can be laid down that ground loss has to be incurred at a particular percentage - AO himself has accepted ground loss @ 2.54% in respect of SFI unit as well as Greater Ferromet - Both AO as well as CIT(A) were not correct in appreciating facts of case and just allowing ground loss in respect of SFI unit at same percentage at which it has been incurred in respect of Greater Ferromet unit - Ground loss has to vary with distance - No allegation that Assessee has sold inventory of iron ore outside books of accounts - Set aside order of CIT(A) and delete addition made by AO – Decided in favour of Assessee. Deletion of addition on account of loss due to forward booking of US$ and by way of contribution for construction of Usgao bridge – Held that:- It is a social obligation demanded by the local community which cannot be overlooked by the assessee. - no material or evidence was brought to our knowledge which may prove that the project belonged to the Assessee and it represents capital expenditure incurred by the Assessee. – Decided against Revenue. Disallowance of expenses out of Community Development - CIT(A) deleted disallowance – Held that:- AO himself accepted, considering nature of business activity carried out by Assessee and obstacle from public, that incurrence of this expenditure cannot be ruled out but restricted allowance of this expenditure to 50% considering involvement of inflation of expenditure - Not denied that Assessee is maintaining regular books of accounts and accounts are being audited - Even though nature of expenses were clearly brought to notice of AO, Revenue did not bring any instance which may prove that expenses are person expenses, capital expenditure or have not been incurred for purpose of business - No interference is called for in order of CIT(A) - CIT(A) has rightly deleted disallowance – Decided against Revenue. Consideration received under the head ‘Capital Gains’ – Held that:- moment Assessee became partner in partnership firm, he got valuable right being partner of firm and this right tantamount to be capital asset in hands of Assessee - Relinquishing partnership right tantamount to transfer of a capital asset - Revenue itself has accepted consideration so received by other partner, Shri Thakur Dilip Singh to be capital receipt in his hand - Decision of Madras High Court in case of A.K. Shrafuddin vs. CIT, [1960 (2) TMI 49 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] applicable to this case – In said decision it was held that compensation received by one partner of partnership firm from another partner for relinquishing his right in partnership is compensation for loss of capital asset and is not a trading receipt - No interference is called for in order of CIT(A) - CIT(A) rightly treated consideration received under head ‘Capital Gains’ - Confirm order of CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue.
|