Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1244 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of depreciation on the cost of Wind Turbine - Held that:- We direct the Assessing Officer to grant depreciation @ 80% and thus decide the issue in favour of the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee Addition on account of shortage - Held that:- The entire purchases of the fruits and vegetables are not exported but only the good quality of fruits which are acceptable to the customers are exported. It is also a fact that during the process of collection of fruits and the final export, damages takes place and the fact that similar shortage and damages have been accepted by the Department in earlier years i.e. assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09 in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act is not in dispute. Before us, Revenue has not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the shortage shown by the assessee has been sold without recording it in the books of accounts. It is also a fact that books of the assessee are audited and no adverse comments on account of shortage has been made by the statutory auditors in their report or in the tax audit report. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that Assessing Officer was not justified in making an ad-hoc disallowance of shortage. We thus direct the deletion of disallowance.- Decided in favour of assessee Cash payment for purchase of fruits - Held that:- It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has purchased fruits for which the payment was made in cash. We find that the sellers of goods have confirmed about the supply of goods to the assessee and the payments for sale being received by them in cash. The Assessing Officer has not brought out any instance of purchase transactions which were not verifiable and had merely proceeded to disallow the expenses on ad-hoc basis. Further, we are of the view that the payment in cash for purchase of agricultural commodities is covered by Rule 6DD(e) of the Rules and in such a situation merely because the cash payments have been made, no disallowance could be made. We are of the view that in the aforesaid facts and without bringing any material on record of the purchases being not verifiable, the Assessing Officer could not have resorted to make an ad-hoc disallowance. We therefore set-aside disallowance made by Assessing Officer - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of loading and unloading charges - Held that:- We find that out of the total expenses ₹ 18.95 lakhs on account of loading and unloading expenses, the Assessing Officer had disallowed only ₹ 75,000/-. Before us, assessee has not placed any material to controvert the findings of Assessing Officer. Considering the totality of facts and in the absence of any material placed by the assessee to controvert the findings of Assessing Officer, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer was justified in disallowing ₹ 75,000/- and therefore we are of the view that no interference to the order of Assessing Officer is called for. - Decided against assessee Disallowance on account of expenditure being of personal in nature - Held that:- We find merit in the plea of the assessee. The company being juristic person, it is difficult to accept the basis for disallowance of the Revenue. A company is incapable of having any personal user of the facilities. The directors are separate from the company. Even assuming that facilities were occasionally used for personal purposes, it is a business expenditure in so far as company is concerned. Such usage of facilities at any rate can be possibly taxed in the hands of the user as perquisite alone. Therefore, no estimated disallowance on account of personal user is called for. - Decided in favour of assessee
|