Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 655 - ITAT MUMBAIAddition to VAT payment to the income of the appellant - Held that:- Full disallowance of the purchases under dispute as made by lower authorities was not justified. AR has canvassed that input VAT was never claimed as deduction and therefore disallowance thereof amounted to double taxation. We do not agree with the same since the input VAT has been adjusted against output VAT and the net amount of VAT has been paid / refunded by the assessee, which in effect amounts to indirect debit to the financial statements keeping in view that fact that purchases were not considered as genuine and therefore, the input VAT claimed there against also could not be considered to be genuine. Additional income on account of alleged bogus purchases - Held that:- Addition from a supplier against which the surrender was not made by the assessee. However, as noted by lower authorities, the purchases made from this supplier were also not proved conclusively as in the case of suspicious dealers. Therefore, the same stand on similar footing. This ground stand dismissed. Addition on account of claim of loss arising out of foreign currency term loan - Held that:- AR, while fairly conceding that the issue stood against the assessee by the order of this Tribunal in immediately preceding AY 2009-10, submitted that the fact that the machinery was already put to us by the assessee has not been considered by the Tribunal and therefore, the same was rendered on erroneous assumption of facts. However, since a view has already been taken by the Tribunal on identical facts and circumstances, refraining from adjudicating the same and respectfully following the same, we conclude that the loss was not allowable as revenue expenditure. Ground Number-4 & 9 stands dismissed. However, we find force in the alternative plea that the same should be treated as capital expenditure and eligible for depreciation. Therefore, the matter stand remitted back to the file of Ld. AO to consider the alternative plea as raised by Ld. AR before us and re-adjudicate as per law.
|