Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 14 - AT - Income TaxDeduction U/S 80-IC - CIT(A) allowed the claim - Held that:- Present year was not the first year for claim of exemption and was rather 3rd year of such claim and in the earlier years such claim was allowed though u/s 143(1). Ld. D.R. did no bring to our notice that assessment of earlier years were also reopened to disallow the claim of assessee. As per Section 80-IC, the deduction is available for a period of 10 years starting form initial Assessment Year and initial Assessment Year has been defined as assessment year relevant to previous year in which undertaking or enterprise begins to manufacture and produce articles or things and in the case of assessee this is not an initial year.Though the case law relied upon by Ld. A.R. relates with the claim of exemption examined u/s 143(3) instead of u/s 143(1) as in the present case, yet for all practical purposes, the assessment u/s 143(1) and u/s 143(3) are one and same and therefore, for this reason also, the claim of assessee cannot be denied unless it is denied in the initial year which has not been done in the present case. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of sundry creditors - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- CIT(A) on 10.01.2013 had written a letter to ITO Hardwar wherein he had asked the A.O. to confirm as to whether the confirmations were placed in the file or not. We find that A.O. on 10.01.2013 itself had confirmed to Ld. CIT(A) Dehradun that the necessary confirmation were there in the file. Regarding argument of Ld. D.R. that assessee itself had stated that confirmations could not be filed vide its letter dated 23.11.2012, we find that the date of confirmations obtained by Ld. CIT(A) from A.O. is vide letter dated 10.01.2013 which is after the date of submissions and we find that A.O. had confirmed the fact that confirmations were on record and a copy of letter written by Ld. CIT(A) and reply submitted by ITO, Ward I on 10.01.2013 is placed on record. As the addition was made only on account of non confirmation of balances by creditors and therefore, grievance of revenue is removed with the finding of A.O. vide letter dated 10.01.2013 that the same were available in the file and therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) confirmed by CIT(A) - Held that:- Ld. A.R. had advanced various arguments for its non liability for deduction of TDS u/s 40(a)(ia) on various counts and we are of the opinion that the same may also be examined by Ld. CIT(A) afresh in view of the arguments advanced by him - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Disallowance on account of difference in confirmations - purchases as claimed by assessee and as per confirmation of different creditors - CIT(A) confirmed part addition - Held that:- We find that assessee in the form of reconciliation has tried to explain the difference by stating that creditors were maintaining two separate accounts for purchases made by Hardwar unit and Faridabad unit and, therefore, there was no difference in the purchases. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has not considered these arguments and has simply allowed relief by excluding opening balances, whereas in our opinion, the entire reconciliation of figures should have been examined by Ld. CIT(A) and after getting confirmations of the same from respective creditors, should have examined the explanation of assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
|