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 169 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of disallowance of vehicle expenses - Held that:- In assessment year 2008-09, the issue of disallowance of vehicle expenses was not in dispute and Ld. CIT(A) in its order dated 21.03.2012 has not adjudicated on this issue. Therefore, reliance made by Ld. CIT(A) in his order for Assessment Year 2008-09 is misplaced. However, we find that during assessment proceedings, the assessee had furnished complete information regarding vehicle expenses as noted by A.O. in para 3 and A.O. did not find any discrepancy in the same. He just disallowed 10% of expenses on ad-hoc basis which is not as per law as A.O. had not made any adverse comments on the details of expenses. - Decided Against revenue Addition on account of difference in balances - Held that:- CIT(A) has partly allowed the relief out of addition u/s 41(1) of the Act in view of balance confirmations filed by assessee relating to amount of ₹ 66,02,696/-. Since the addition u/s 41(1) was made only on the basis of non filing of balance confirmations, the relief allowed by Ld. CIT(A) on account of receipt of balance confirmation is justified and we are in agreement with the findings of Ld. CIT(A). - Decided Against revenue Balance confirmation - Addition confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) for an amount of ₹ 10,94,714/- - Held that:- CIT(A) had made the confirmation of addition on the basis of remand report of A.O. wherein he had alleged that the explanation of assessee was after thought. A.O. did not furnish any adverse comments on the explanation of assessee. Ld. A.R. had argued that reporting of lower profits in Assessment Year 2009-10 by an amount of ₹ 9,88,887/- has been compensated in Assessment Year 2010-2011 by an equal amount and since the tax rates in both yeas were same, there is no tax loss to the Revenue. W find that assessee has though filed copy of accounts of said party showing reversal of such entry but has not filed any evidence to demonstrate that the contra entry has been reduced from purchases in succeeding year. Thus this ground of assessee’s appeal needs to be readjudicated by A.O. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Addition on account of sundry creditors u/s 41(1) - Addition u/s 41(1) on account of unsecured loan - Held that:- The case laws relied by A.O. for making additions u/s 41(1) are distinguishable on the facts and circumstances. In the case of T V Sundram Iiyengar & Sons [1996 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court], the assessee itself had credited to its p & L account. The unclaimed receipts which is not the case in the present appeal. Similarly in Phoenix Miles Ltd. [2002 (2) TMI 1313 - ITAT MUMBAI] the assessee had credited to its P & L account unclaimed outstanding balances therefore, this case law is also wrongly relied upon by A.O. Therefore, keeping in view all facts and circumstances’ and keeping in view the judicial precedents relied upon by Ld. A.R., the addition u/s 41(1) is not warranted.- Decided in favour of assessee
|