Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 803 - AT - Income TaxWharfage/port dues - whether in the nature of tax, duty, cess or fee u/s 43B Held that:- Wharfage/port dues payable by the assessee to the MMB as royalty for cargo handling at Dighi Port as per the contract between the parties - dues were not payable by way of tax, duty, cess or fee the decision in CIT vs. McDowell & Co. Ltd. [2009 (5) TMI 28 - SUPREME COURT] followed - section 43B of the Act is not attracted in the case - the disallowance made/confirmed by the lower authorities u/s 43B was not called for and the finding of the CIT(A) is set aside Decided in favour of Assessee. Non-reconciliation in TDS certificate - Held that:- Assessee neither before the AO nor before the CIT(A) had been able to reconcile the amounts relating to the rent received from Ashapura Minechem Ltd. there was no force in the contention of the assessee that the excess amount received by the assessee cannot be assessed as income of the assessee especially when the Ashapura Minechem Ltd. has debited the same in its accounts on account of rent paid to the assessee and TDS deducted Decided against Assessee. Wharfage payment of claim u/s 37(1) Disallowance u/s 43B Held that:- CIT(A) was right in holding that it was the assessee who as SPV was constructing, operating and managing the port and was also having income from cargo handling and thus was liable to claim corresponding expenditure relating to the said income in the shape of wharfage/port dues expenditure payable as royalty to the MMB - it was the assessee who was entitled to develop, manage and operate the Dighi Port and the assessee has also offered income from the cargo handling at Dighi Port and even the disputed dues, for which the provision was made, have been offered as income in the subsequent assessment year after the settlement of dispute - it was the assessee who was liable to pay the port dues and the expenditure was rightly claimed by the assessee in its return of income - the AO is directed to verify as to whether the assessee has offered the expenditure Decided against Revenue. Unexplained investment in plant and machinery u/s 69 Genuineness of purchase not established Held that:- It was the assessee who as SPV was constructing, operating and managing the port there was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) holding that the plant and machinery belonged to the assessee - the disallowance was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) Decided against Revenue. General expenses Held that:- The assessee during the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), had produced all the details and supporting evidence in respect of general expenses claimed by it - it requires verification by the AO thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for verification of details and evidences submitted by the assessee Decided in favour of Revenue.
|