|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1962 Records
-
2017 (3) TMI 1825
Monetary limit to file appeal - low tax effect - Revenue has filed the present Miscellaneous Petition on the ground that the Circular No.21/2015 of CBDT is not applicable to the appeal of the Revenue - Reopening of assessment on audit objection disallowing expenditure paid to Cochin Port Trust, for non-deduction of tax - HELD THAT:- AO reopened the assessment u/s 147 on the basis of audit objection and disallowed an expenditure being the sum paid to Cochin Port Trust towards port charges. Admittedly, the appeal was not filed on the basis of audit objection. The assessment was reopened on the basis of audit objection.
On perusal of the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Rule 15 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, it appears that the appeal was filed in the regular course and not on the basis of audit objection. Therefore, it is obvious that para 8 of Circular No.21 of 2015 issued by CBDT is not applicable. Hence, the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Revenue has no merit at all.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1824
Penalty u/s 271E - Non recording of satisfaction regarding initiation of penalty proceedings - HELD THAT:- Assessment Order there is no mention about initiation of any penalty proceedings in connection with the impugned penalty. In this view of the matter and respectfully following case of CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills [2015 (11) TMI 1453 - SUPREME COURT] delete the impugned penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1823
Disallowance of excess claim of depreciation - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case[2014 (5) TMI 926 - ITAT MUMBAI] direct the AO to allow the depreciation on the machinery that had been acquired from Bilag, and also include incidental expenses incurred on acquisition of assets.
Depreciation on goodwill - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2014 (5) TMI 926 - ITAT MUMBAI] relying on Smifs Securities Ltd. [2012 (8) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT] - intangibles like goodwill are eligible for depreciation - non compete fee is in the nature of the payment and is now covered u/s 28(va) of the Act, it would be revenue in nature - AO is directed to allow the depreciation on goodwill as per law and consider the payment of non-compete fee, in terms of section 28(va) – Decided in favour of Assessee.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1822
Deduction u/s 80P - assessee was in the business of banking and section 80P(4) stood attracted and disallowed the claim of the assessee u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) - CIT(A), by relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2016 (4) TMI 826 - KERALA HIGH COURT] accepted the claim of the assessee u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) - HELD THAT:- Assessee having produced the certificate which clearly indicated its nature as a primary agricultural credit society, in our opinion, section 80P(4) could not have been invoked for denying the claim u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) - We cannot find fault with the order of the CIT(A).
As for the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Perithalmanna Service Co-operative Bank vs. CIT [2014 (6) TMI 184 - KERALA HIGH COURT] relied on by Ld. DR, this was pronounced on 31st January, 2014 prior to the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2016 (4) TMI 826 - KERALA HIGH COURT] Further the said case dealt with the revisionary powers of the CIT u/s. 263 of the Act when the Assessing Officer had failed to make necessary enquiries.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1821
Proportionate deduction u/s.80IB - profits attributable to the units where the built-up area is below 1500 sq.ft. even when no such apportionment is prescribed under the provisions of the Act - Whether Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under section 80IB in respect of profits derived from the sale of residential units, wherein the built up area is below 1500 sq.ft. ? - HELD THAT:- Revenue is unable to dispute that the Tribunal in the impugned order has relied upon its earlier decision in the case of M/s. S J R Enterprises [2009 (8) TMI 953 - BANGALORE TRIBUNAL COURT] which has been not interfered with by this Court in the above referred [2012 (3) TMI 615 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], the present appeals are squarely covered by the decision of this Court - No substantial questions would continue to remain, but even if the questions are to be examined, they would stand answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee
-
2017 (3) TMI 1820
Stay of demand - recovery proceedings - granted relief to the extent of 85% of the demand - AO demanded the amount rejecting the assessee’s explanation that the said sum was invested in Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) on account of Central Government’s policy, through the directives of the appropriate ministry - HELD THAT:- The Court notices that the AO applied the Board’s office memorandum dated 29.02.2016 and has granted relief to the extent of 85% of the demand. However, having regard to the materials on record, it is quite clear that the amounts were deposited with the BARC not by way of investment or choice, but on account of a Central Government policy.
This peculiar circumstance warrants adoption of the policy, spelt out in para 4(D) of the memorandum dated 29.02.2016. The petitioner’s appeal may, therefore, be decided by the concerned Appellate Commissioner within three months from today. Pending a final decision, no coercive steps shall be taken to enforce the demand. In the light of the above order, the petitioner shall ensure that the review application filed before the CIT(E) and the Chief Commissioner is withdrawn within a week.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1819
Interest accrued on NPA - Accrual of income - HELD THAT:- Assessee was bound to follow classification of NPA in accordance with prudential norms prescribed by Reserve Bank of India. It is not disputed that the assessee had not shown any income accrual of interest on non-performing assets in its accounts. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. [2015 (1) TMI 1218 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that Tribunal has rightly dealt with this issue and observed that, unclaimed dividend in question amounts to excess provisions for dividend made by the Assessee on an earlier occasion which has been reversed by the Assessee in the year under consideration and transferred to a reserve account. The provisions for dividend made earlier was not a charge action profits but it was appropriation of the profits available post-taxation.
It may be true that Section 43D of the Act would not be applicable to the assessee since it was a co-operative bank. However, by virtue of the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, reproduced above, primacy has been given to Section 45Q of the RBI Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion that interest on NPA could not have been added to the income of the assessee. In taking this view, we are also fortified by the judgment in the case of CIT v. Shri Siddeswar Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2016 (6) TMI 1129 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] where their Lordship had made an analysis of the provisions considering the importance of prudential norms of RBI based on Vol.I of Tannans Banking Law & Practice in India. We, therefore, delete such an addition.
Provision for bad debt - only pleading of the assessee is that it should be given a chance for working out average aggregate rural advance for the purpose of application of Section 36(1)(viia) - HELD THAT:- CIT(Appeals) himself noted at para 6.4 of his order that when figures of aggregate average advances are correctly furnished by the assessee, the deduction of provision can be re-worked and allowed. Considering these facts, we are of the opinion that the matter can be revisited by the Assessing Officer. We set aside the orders of the lower authorities with regard to disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts and remit the issue back to A.O. to consider afresh in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to furnish the information called for by the Assessing Officer with regard to average aggregate rural advances of its rural branches correctly.
Ex-gratia payment - HELD THAT:- It is not disputed that these payments were made to the employees of the assessee, who were not covered by payment of bonus under Bonus Act. It is also not the case of the Revenue that the employees of the assessee, who were paid the ex-gratia, were shareholders or persons entitled for share of profits or dividend. This being the case, in our opinion, such ex-gratia to employees who were not covered under the payment of Bonus Act, could not be considered as paid for a purpose which was not wholly for the purpose of assessee’s business. Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act has no applicability to payments made to employees who were not eligible for share of profits or dividend.
Disallowance of payment to Gratuity Fund of LIC - amount added back by the assessee in its computation is mentioned by the A.O. in the assessment order - HELD THAT:- As per the A.O., assessee could not give clarification details of the payment. Though a ground in this regard has been raised by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals), Ld. CIT(Appeals) had not given any specific finding. Assessment order itself was very cryptic on this issue and had not given any details regarding payment of Gratuity and why it was being disallowed. Question regarding allowance of Gratuity payment requires a fresh look by the A.O. We set aside orders of the authorities below in this regard and remit the issue regarding payment of Gratuity, back to the file of the AO for consideration afresh, in accordance with law.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1818
Bogus purchases - CIT(A) upholding the adhoc addition being 40% - HELD THAT:- Materials were received and sold and duly accounted for and therefore it is not the case where the accommodation entries were taken to suppress the income of the assessee.
Purchases made by the assessee stand proved. Disallowance as sustained by the FAA appears to be unreasonable and excessive and therefore cannot be sustained. In order to plug the leakages of revenue due to the possibility of purchasing goods from the gray market as generally the case is and thus savings made on account of sales tax, octroi and other charges, some reasonable addition should be made.
Reasonable to sustain the addition @5% of the total purchases to cover and compensate for the saving made by the assessee by making purchases from grey market. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to made the addition @ 5% in place of 40% by the ld CIT of bogus purchases. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1817
Revision u/s 263 - as per CIT assessee could not have claimed depreciation on plant and machinery given on lease and since the assessee has not reduced the lease value of plant and machinery from block of assets, therefore, the assessee has claimed excess depreciation - HELD THAT:- Not only specific query was raised by the AO but also detailed reply has been made on the basis of which the AO has framed the assessment and allowed the depreciation on the leased asset . It cannot be held that in the light of this record, the AO has not applied his mind or there is any lack of inquiry made by the AO on the impugned issue.
When, the AO has applied his mind on the given facts and material on record which has been specifically required by him, then it cannot be held that the AO has passed the assessment order without any application of mind. Once, a particular view has been taken by the AO which is a possible view in facts and in law, then unless the Ld. PCIT points out that, such view is not tenable either on law or on facts, then such an assessment order cannot be cancelled within the scope and ambit of section u/s 263. See MAX INDIA LTD. [2007 (11) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT]
and MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT].
AO has applied his mind and taken a view therefore, such an order of assessment cannot be held to be “erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue‟, unless it is shown that the view of the AO, itself is untenable in law and on facts. Here the ld.PCIT has not even specified as to what kind on enquiry is to be conducted by the AO. Thus, such an assessment order cannot be cancelled u/s 263 - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1816
Condonation of Delay of 75 days in Filing Reply - Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, 1959 - HELD THAT:- The delay of 75 days in filing the reply of the respondent-company is condoned - Application disposed off.
Condonation of Delay in Refiling Affidavit - HELD THAT:- The delay of 45 days in refiling the personal affidavit of the Managing Director of the respondent-company is condoned - Application disposed off.
Let the rejoinder be filed within a period of four weeks from today - Renotify on 28.08.2017.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1815
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- This Bench is of the view the corporate debtor has complied with provision Of Section 10 of the Code and convince us for declaring moratorium with consequential directions - petition is admitted for declaring moratorium.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1814
Partition of property - amendment of plaint by laying a challenge to the sale of the property at Faridabad on the plea that being property of the HUF, defendant No.1 could not sell the same without the consent of the other coparceners - whether actionable pleadings have been made in the plaint qua the claim? - HELD THAT:- In Chander Sen's case [1986 (7) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court held that after the promulgation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the traditional view under the Hindu Law no longer remained the legal position. This decision was followed incase (supra) the Supreme Court held that after the promulgation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the traditional view under the Hindu Law no longer remained the legal position.
In the present case, the pleadings by the appellant is only to the effect that the property at Rajinder Nagar was purchased by the grandfather of the appellant from out of the funds of the firm M/s Gian Singh Sukhdev Singh which was set up by the late grandfather of the appellant and that the funds for the business came from the properties left behind in Pakistan. No details or particulars of the properties left behind at Pakistan have been pleaded. We take judicial notice of the fact that post-partition, people who migrated to India from the territories of the newly State of Pakistan were required to file claims before the custodian of evacuee properties and upon proof of properties left behind in Pakistan, compensations were assessed. These people were treated as refugees and either money or an immovable property was allotted to these refugees by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India. In the plaint the lack of pleadings to said effect cannot be overlooked.
The positive statements required by law to be pleaded in the plaint regarding constitution of an HUF are missing as has been rightly held by the learned Single Judge - We concur with the view taken that the plaint does not disclose an actionable cause of action and we supplement by recording that the proposed amendment of the plaint does not improve this lack of actionable pleading.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1813
Deduction claimed u/s 24(a) disallowed - Rent income should be treated as income from house property OR Business income - HELD THAT:- No details were furnished by assessee till 17/07/2014. Some statements regarding the queries raised by ld CIT(A) were filed by assessee on 28/08/2014, from which the facts were not verifiable as to which are the asset used for Marine training.
CIT(A) concluded that assessee company executed two agreements , one in respect of buildings and other in respect of furniture and fixture. The assessee company derived the benefits claiming depreciation all the years and now has changed the head the income only to claim standard deduction u/s 24(a) which is higher than the depreciation comparative to repairs and maintenance. Assessee has not filed copy of Memorandum of Association of Assessee Company for the reasons best known to them. The Audit report filed by the assessee reveals that nature of ‘business or profession’ is Boat pleasure, Cruising, renting of properties [para 8(a)] and there is no change in the nature of business or profession. The ratio of the various decisions is not applicable as the facts of the present case are at variance. We have seen that the order of ld CIT (A) is reasoned one and does not require any interference at our end. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1812
Invokation of extended period of limitation - Demand of duty alongwith interest and penalty - appellant procured certain inputs from 100% EOU - credit of duty availed in excess of additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act equivalent to duty of excise specified in Clauses (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (via) of Rule 3(1) of CCR, 2004 is irregular - it was held by CESTAT that Though the method used for calculating the measure of such excise duty was also to include element of customs duties but the entire duty paid on the invoices will have to be considered as Central Excise duty paid under Section 3(1) of Central Excise Act.
HELD THAT:- Issue Notice.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1811
Penalty by Adjudicating Officer u/s 15A of SEBI Act - documents which has been asked for has been furnished are false - whether power of the Adjudicating Officer to impose penalty is limited and can be exercised only in the event of failure to furnish documents? - HELD THAT:- It appears from the order which was passed that the Adjudicating Offier had specifically stated in para 31 “that the appellant has already furnished the materials which are available on record”. Since the materials have already been furnished, in our opinion, the said Section is not attracted on the given facts.
Appellate Tribunal was not justified in upholding the order passed by the Adjudicating Officer on the basis of drawing adverse inferences against the appellant which is based on no material facts and no positive evidence has been furnished is totally erroneous.
Adjudicating Officer has also failed to take into consideration that there was no non-compliance of summons, if she considered that in the first instance the summons was not issuable to the appellant. SEBI had all the information and the appellant (like many other non-registered entities) was under the bonafide belief that it did not come under the ambit, purview, compass and jurisdiction of SEBI.
Having regard to the submissions made, we are of the view that that the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable and hence the same is set aside.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1810
Oppression and mismanagement - Doctrine of Indoor Management - Validity of Board Meeting as well as the Extra-Ordinary General Meeting - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that both the meeting of Board held 2.11.2010 and 10.12.2010 and the Extra-Ordinary General Meeting held on 17.3.2011 without notice and knowledge of the minority shareholders have been declared as illegal - The findings of the Tribunal to that effect is not under challenge in this appeal. In case of "Oppression and Mismanagement", it is open to the Tribunal to grant relief as per sub-section 2 of Section 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 (equivalent to Section 402 of the Companies Act, 1956).
In view power vested under sub-section (2) of Section 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, it is open to the Tribunal to decide as to what relief to be granted, if it gives declaration of 'oppression and mismanagement'. The Tribunal having power to declare an agreement invalid or void can set aside the same. The aggrieved party as a matter of right cannot claim to save any action or agreement, following the "Doctrine of Indoor Management".
Appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1809
Import of GENIE Brand and Self propelled articulating Boom - benefit of N/N. 39/96-Cus., Sl. No. 10, condition 2(iii), dated 23-7-1996 denied - condition of the notification is that a certificate has to be given by an officer not below the rank of the Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Defence, whereas in the instant case, the certificate was produced by the appellant, issued by Air-Vice-Marshal in the Air Force Hq. - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute about the authenticity and genuineness of the certificate. Hence, there is no reason to deny the benefit of the exemption notification. The certificate was signed by an officer in the rank of a Major General.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1808
Disallowance of interest on advances given treating it to be non business expenditure - Sufficiency of own funds - AO found that the assessee has advanced interest bearing funds to some of persons from which either no interest is charged or the same is charged at lesser rate whereas the assessee has paid interest @ 12% on loan taken - HELD THAT:- Interest-free advance were given out of interest-free funds available with the assessee during the year for which sufficient interest-free funds were available. Therefore, we are of the view that the Ld. A.O. has failed to establish that interest free advances to above stated four parties were out of interest bearing funds. We find that the AO has not been able to establish the nexus between interest bearing funds utilized for non business purpose
In the present case, the sufficient interest free funds were available at the disposal of the assessee. Therefore, presumption would go in favour of the assessee that the interest free funds were given out of interest free funds available at the disposal of the assessee as per balance sheet of the assessee. We further rely on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Hero Cycles Ltd. [2009 (11) TMI 33 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT]wherein it was held that no disallowance out of interest payment is permissible if AO does not establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and income generated. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Addition u/s 41(1) - cessation of liability - there is a one creditor M/s Mahima Porsepun in whose case an amount was outstanding for last three years - HELD THAT:- there was no basis by treating the said amount as remission or cessation of a trading liability of the assessee when it was not unilateral written off by the assessee. We find that the AO has made this addition merely on the basis of expiry of limitation to file the suit by creditor, where he cannot who come up with a proceedings for enforcement of debt. However, we find that this amount was subsequently settled by the assessee in the succeeding years therefore, the assessee has not derived or obtained any benefit in respect of such trading liability. Therefore, the addition made on the basis of presumption cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Provision of Section 41(1)(a) of the Act can only be invoked when the assessee has written off the liability in its books of accounts by unilateral act. Since, the assessee has not written off the aforesaid amount in its books of accounts and the payment has been settled in the subsequent year, therefore, the addition so made by the AO, is not sustainable in the law. Accordingly, the same is deleted. This grounds of appeal is therefore allowed.
Addition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - assessee has invested the capital in the form of share capital for which he is earning his share income from the firm and has shown share of profit - HELD THAT:- As relying on DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT (P.) LTD. [2008 (10) TMI 383 - ITAT MUMBAI] there is no dispute that there cannot be any doubt, that some expenditure incurred in making of earning of income for dividend in case of maximum accounting the expenditure is not identified as such it directly relates to earning of dividend but that cannot be granted to say that no expenditure is incurred for earning dividend income for that or no expenditure could be related to that income. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid decisions and the provision of Rule 8D(iii) we are of the view that the assessee must have incurred the some expenditure in relation to earn exempt income therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and as confirmed by the CIT(A) are upheld. Hence this ground of appeal is dismissed.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1807
Interest subsidy received by the assessee under TUFS - Revenue or capital receipt - HELD THAT:- Identical subsidy under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme 2000 was held to be capital receipt not chargeable to tax by this tribunal in the case of DCIT vs PWC Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (7) TMI 1052 - ITAT KOLKATA] . Following the aforesaid decisions we hold that the receipt of subsidy under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme 2000 is a capital receipt not chargeable to tax. Accordingly ground no.1 raised by the revenue is dismissed.
Set off of loss being unabsorbed depreciation of 100% EOU eligible for deduction u/s. 10B against profit on non-eligible unit - HELD THAT:- Admittedly under the provision of section 10B(8) of the Act the assessee had not claimed the benefit of deduction u/s 10B of the Act and the letter of the Assessee in this regard filed in the course of Assessment proceedings for AY 2005-06. For an assessee who was opted out of the provision of section 10B of the Act, the profits of EOU unit have to be regarded as any other business profits and the computation provision of section 70 to 72 of the Act would be applicable. In such an event the claim of set off as claimed by the assessee deserves to be allowed. Apart from the above in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd. [2016 (12) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT] provision of section 10B have to be regarded as deduction provision, the provisions of section 70 to 72 of the Act will be applicable. In view of the above we uphold the order of CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss ground no.2 raised by the revenue.
Additional depreciation on plant and machinery only in the year of acquisition and installation u/s 32 - CIT(A) allowing assessee's claim of additional depreciation of plant and machinery on original cost in the year subsequent to the year of acquisition and installation - Additional depreciation was rejected by CIT(A) for the reason that additional depreciation is available only in respect of new plant and machinery acquired and installed after 31.03.2005 - only objection of the AO is that the provisions refer to “new machinery or plant” and therefore the machinery will cease to be a new machinery after the end of the first year in which it is installed or put to us - HELD THAT:- In our view this stand taken by the revenue is not supported by the language of statutory provision. The condition imposed by the relevant provisions is that Plant and Machinery must be new at the time of installation to be eligible for additional depreciation u/ s 32(1)(iia) and not new in subsequent years. The expression “new machinery” is therefore to be construed as referring to the condition that at the time of acquisition or installation the machinery or plant should be new. Going by the legislative history of the relevant provision, we are of the view that the condition for allowing additional depreciation only in the initial assessment year ceased to exist as and from 01.04.2006. The plain language of the section warrants such an interpretation. We therefore uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss ground no.3 raised by the revenue.
MAT - Deduction on account of profit from sale of fixed asset while computing book profit u/s. 115JB - whether CIT(A) has erred in allowing assessee's claim of deduction ignoring the provision introduced by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2001 and thereby has erred in deleting the addition? - HELD THAT:- Decision of the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Frigsales [2005 (6) TMI 478 - ITAT MUMBAI] based on which the CIT(A) held that profit on sale of fixed assets cannot be included as part of book profits for the purpose of Sec.115JB of the Act is applicable to the facts of the present case.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1806
TP Adjustment - downward adjustment made by the Ld. TPO in respect of the international transactions - assessee to justify its claim for having received services from Associated Enterprises, whereas it was observed that many of the services were duplicative in nature as the assessee failed to explain how payments were made to its employees as well as its Associated Enterprises - DRP emphasized that the assessee company has failed to produce any documents to substantiate the claims and the Ld. TPO has consider the information and observed that the assessee has not cooperated in submitting the correct data - HELD THAT:- We are in consonance with the facts that the Associated Enterprises rendered services and the payments have been made by the assessee company though assessee could not substantiate it due to various reasons on the claim, we find strength in the arguments of the Ld. AR, that these expenditure being genuine and incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and we are of the opinion that if the assessee produced the details of expenditure for availing the services from the Associated Enterprises and prove the genuineness of transaction.
We having considered the factual aspects, judicial decisions and also the facts of claim of expenditure by the assessee and cannot be overlooked and an opportunity may be provided to substantiate the claim supporting the details of expenditure in the nature of management fees paid to the Associated Enterprises. In the interest of justice, we provide an opportunity to the assessee and remit the disputed issue to the file of the DRP which has considered these facts in its order and further direct the assessee to produce the claim of expenditure with supporting evidence and accordingly the assessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
............
|
9911796707
