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 170 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - car expenses where the Assessing Officer had disallowed expenses varying 40% to 80% - Held that:- The Assessing Officer has made the aforesaid additions after referring to the facts in each of the assessment years involved and even considered the acquisition of new cars in each of the assessment years and thereafter, worked out the disallowance. The Assessing Officer also called for the details from the assessee i.e. log book maintained and also to justify whether the expenditure had been incurred for the purposes of business. In the absence of any evidence furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made the disallowance on proportionate basis. Such disallowance made by the Assessing Officer cannot be invalid as the carwise details were not available, the Assessing Officer had no recourse but to resort to estimation to disallow the expenses, which were not relatable to carrying out of the business of the assessee Trust. - Decided in favour of assessee. Car expenses was the acquisition of cars from year to year - Held that:- Where the Commissioner on the perusal of the record, was of the opinion that the estimate made by the Assessing Officer was on the lower side and should have been estimated at a figure higher than the one determined by the Assessing Officer, does not empower the Commissioner to re-examine the accounts and re-determine the estimation in the hands of the assessee, where the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings had made estimated disallowance.- Decided in favour of assessee. Allowance of depreciation - Held that:- Perusal of the assessment order reflects that the Assessing Officer has not allowed the claim of depreciation to the assessee and had reworked out the depreciation on the assets in the hands of the assessee, as per the special audit report. In view thereof, where the Assessing Officer had not allowed the claim of the assessee on account of depreciation on assets, we find no merit in the order of Commissioner in exercising the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act.- Decided in favour of assessee. Depreciation on hospital building - Held that:- Assessee had claimed depreciation on building valued at ₹ 21.29 crores, whereas the Assessing Officer had allowed the depreciation only on the value of ₹ 18.89 crores. The un-vouched expenses, if any, had been considered by the Assessing Officer and accordingly, we find no merit in the order of Commissioner in holding the assessment order to be prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.- Decided in favour of assessee. Unsecured loans raised by the assessee and interest thereon - Held that:- AO had disallowed the loans relating to certain persons. However, interest paid on such loans was not disallowed by the Assessing Officer. This aspect of non-disallowance of interest relatable to loans, which had not been allowed by the Assessing Officer makes the order of Assessing Officer prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. We uphold the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act by the Commissioner on this aspect.- Decided against assessee. Registration under section 12A - benefits of sections 11 and 12 denied - Held that:- Once the Assessing Officer had come to a finding that the assessee was not entitled to the exemptions under sections 11 and 12 of the Act as it had no registration under section 12A of the Act, the violation of provisions of section 13 of the Act becomes immaterial as the said provisions of the Act are not applicable while computing income in normal course of business. Accordingly, we find no merit in the observations of the Commissioner in holding the assessment order to be prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and we reverse the same.- Decided in favour of assessee. Unvouched revenue and capital expenditure disallowed - Held that:- The Commissioner was of the view that the Assessing Officer should have made proper enquiries to prove or link the cheque by means of which the payment was made for the expenses while exercising the power under section 263 of the Act. The Commissioner cannot step into the shows of Assessing Officer, who while conducting the assessment proceedings, had made certain enquiries and had come to the finding that the said expenses were to be disallowed. Once the expenses were disallowed by the Assessing Officer, we find no merit in the order of Commissioner in holding the same to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue - Decided in favour of assessee. Payment of advertisement expenses and telephone expenses of the Trustees and their relations - Held that:- The Commissioner having failed to come to the conclusion as to how the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer makes the order prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and merely setting aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for making further enquiries had exceeded his jurisdiction in exercise of the powers under section 263 of the Act. Where the Commissioner has failed to record reasons for holding the order to be erroneous, then the exercise of such powers by the Commissioner are un-sustainable in law. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|