Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 874 - AT - Income TaxAddition of bogus purchases - bills and delivery challans conclusively not proved the transactions Held that:- CIT(A) has given a finding that the shortage has been worked out by the AO on the basis of various assumptions - on one hand AO has taxed additional income on account of excess stock as per Assessee's working and on the other hand held the stock found physically on the date of survey to be short in comparison to stock as per books which according to him are contradictory to each other - CIT(A) by a well-reasoned and detailed order has confirmed the purchases from Minakshi Enterprises to be bogus but the other addition made from two other parties were deleted for the reason that the 2 parties in their statement recorded u/s. 131 had confirmed the dispatch of goods as per the billing dates - Revenue has been brought any material to controvert the findings of CIT(A) the order of the CIT(A) is upheld Decided against Revenue. Addition of unexplained entry Held that:- CIT(A) has noted that Assessee's claim of calculation in sales or closing stock was not backed by any evidence and the claim that the raw material worth ₹ 11,65,591/- which represents value of investment in unaccounted raw material found at the time of survey was in quantity terms included in the sale or closing stock was also not substantiated by Assessee assessee has submitted that the letter filed by the Chartered Accountant on 27.12.2003 clarifying the issue has not been considered by the AO - the matter needs to be re-examined at the end of AO the matter is to be remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication Decided in favour of Assessee. Payments made of interest and payment to contractors TDS deposited after the prescribed due date u/s. 194 A and 194C or not - Held that:- Assessee had deducted tax u/s. 194C from the payment made to Gujarat Perfect Engineers Ltd. and Varia Engineering Works and the TDS was deposited on 07.06.2005 and the return of income was filed by Assessee on 3.10.2005 and thus TDS was deposited before the filing of return - CIT vs. Praful Kantilal Shah [2014 (8) TMI 808 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act brought out by Finance Act, 2010 with effect from 01.04.2010 was having retrospective effect - no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is called for when the Assessee had deposited TDS before filing of return of income Decided in favour of Assessee. Bogus purchases - bills procured on payment of commission Held that:- CIT(A) has noted that in response to summons, M/s. Paresh Steel and Shree Bhagyalaxmi Steel had confirmed the dispatch of goods as per the billing dates - CIT(A) has noted that AO has held part of the purchases to be genuine and part of the purchases to be bogus which according to him is quite unusual - CIT(A) rightly held the purchases from Minaxi Enterprises to be bogus but the addition on account of purchases made from two other parties - the Revenue has not brought any material to controvert the findings of CIT(A) Decided against Revenue. Addition of unexplained entry Held that:- CIT(A) has noted that Assessee's claim of calculation in sales or closing stock was not backed by any evidence and the claim that the raw material which represents value of investment in unaccounted raw material found at the time of survey was in quantity terms included in the sale or closing stock was also not substantiated by Assessee - assessee submitted that the letter filed by the Chartered Accountant on 27.12.2003 clarifying the issue has not been considered by the AO thus, the matter is to be remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration Decided in favour of Assessee. Value of 12 LT panels Held that:- Assessee contended that the LT panels were manufactured for Sikkim Government and since they were defective it was considered as scrap and not included in stock - assessee could not produce any correspondence entered by it with Sikkim Government to demonstrate that the LT panels were scrapped on the basis of the letter from Sikkim Government - CIT(A) has also, while upholding the addition has noted that there were several inconsistencies in the Assessee's explanation and further Assessee had not produced any documentary evidence to support its contention the order of the CIT(A) is upheld Decided against Assessee.
|