Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 352 - AT - Income TaxDeduction of business loss u/s.28 - CIT(A) rejected the claim - Held that:- AO stated that the amount of ₹ 4,74,404/- consisted of advances given to various parties as well as deposits with the Government departments. Party-wise bifurcation is not available on record. In the absence of the same, it is not clear whether there was any deposit in the capital field. In our considered view, advances which were on revenue field, is allowable as revenue loss, whereas the deposits which were on capital field is not allowable being capital loss. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remit the matter back to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh - Decided in favour of assesse for statistical purpose. Disallowance of penalty for infringement of law - the assessee had paid sales tax penalty - Held that:- in the case of CIT Vs. Hoshiari Lal Kewal Krishnan (2006 (10) TMI 140 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT) has held that where the payment was not in the nature of punishment, but was by way of compensation, then the amount was allowable as deduction to the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court observed that case of Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Brothers Vs. CIT, [1960 (11) TMI 15 - SUPREME Court] has held that any amount paid, which was in the nature of penalty for breach of law, was not allowable as deduction while computing the income of the assessee, as the payment was not to compensate the loss on account of delay in making the payment, but was on account of penalty for breach of law. No material has been brought on record to show that the said amount was paid by the assessee by way of compensation for delay in making the payment of sales-tax. - Decided against assesse. Disallowance of export promotion and sales promotion expenses - Held that:- We find that the apart from making a general submission that the turnover of the assessee has increased, no specific error in the order of the CIT(A) could be pointed out by the AR. The purpose of visit and the business connection of the above expenditure could not be established by the assessee by producing relevant material. In the absence of the same, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A), which is confirmed - Decided against assesse. Disallowance on account of repairing expenses - Held that:- In the absence of any details of the expenditure, it is not possible on our part to adjudicate the issue completely. In our considered view, when a part of the machine is replaced, then the resultant expenditure is revenue in nature, but when the part replaced itself can be regarded as a separate and independent machine, then the expenditure is capital in nature. Thus restore the issue back to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh in the light of the observation made hereinabove after proper verification by passing a speaking order - Decided in favour of assesse for statistical purpose.
|