|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 2133 Records
-
2018 (2) TMI 1974
Disallowance u/s 14A - Disallowance of interest expenses u/s 36(1)(iii) - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- The assessee has proved that all the scripts were held as stock in trade and there was no investment, therefore, Rule 8D will not be applicable in the present case. From the records, it also reveals that the same is just and proper as related to disallowance of interest expenses u/s 36(1) (iii) interest on funds utilized in buying securities for earning exempt income is not there in the Income Tax Act only interest is paid for a funds for non business purposes can be disallowed. Thus, the CIT(A) has given a detailed finding and there is no need to interfere with the same. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1973
Corporate insolvency procedure - existence of dispute - HELD THAT:- Issue Notice.
Until further orders, there shall be stay of operation of judgment and order dated 16.08.2017 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1972
Imposition of penalty on CHA - Mis-declaration of value of goods - no corroborative evidences - case of appellant is that impugned order has been mechanically passed without considering the submission of the appellant - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- There is no corroborative evidence to the allegation that the appellant has helped the importer by undervaluing the imported goods. The penalty has only been imposed on the basis of the e-mails received from his e-mail account which have not been corroborated by independent evidence - Further, it is found that the clearance of the impugned goods were done not by the appellant but some other Customs broker and the appellant had not played any role in the clearance of the impugned consignment.
In view of insufficient evidence against the appellant to impose penalty on him under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, penalty cannot sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1971
Bogus purchase - assessee as a beneficiary of the hawala transactions - purchases from the open/grey market - CIT-A upheld the disallowance made by the A.O @ 12.5% of the bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- As the profit element accounted for by the assessee in its regular books of accounts pertains to the profit which it would have made from selling the goods under consideration, therefore, the same would have no bearing on the quantification of the monetary benefit involved in making of purchases by the assessee at a lower price from the open/grey market, as in comparison to purchases made from a registered dealer.
Addition/disallowance made by the lower authorities @ 12.5% is in respect of the monetary benefit which the assessee would have generated from making of the purchases from the open/grey market. We thus in terms of our aforesaid observations are of the considered view that the addition/disallowance @ 12.5% of the value of the bogus purchases so made by the A.O had rightly been upheld by the CIT(A). We thus in terms of our aforesaid observations uphold the order of the CIT(A). - Decided against assessee.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1970
Recovery of outstanding dues - rights for the benefit of the Corporate Debtor in any Judicial Proceedings - HELD THAT:- Prima facie, the action of the Professional against one of the Debtor of the S.N. Plumbing appears to be a correct legal action. It is one of the duty of the Resolution Professional to recover the outstanding Debts of a Corporate Debtor against whom already CIRP is in progress - Indeed, it is the duty of the IRP/RP to take all possible steps not only to invite Resolution Applicant but to take steps for recovery of the Debts outstanding. The action against IL & FS Engineering is one of such action as a Corporate Debtor by invoking the provisions of section 9 of The Code. As per the statement made before us by the RPI no other case is pending against IL & FS in the capacity of a Corporate Debtor.
The language of Section 60(2) and other allied provisions of The Code has no ambiguity that no two parallel Insolvency Proceedings must run against a Corporate Debtor. Hence a clarification is needed in this case that S.N. Plumbing has not submitted the impugned Petition before the respected NCLT Bench, Hyderabad in the capacity of a Corporate Debtor but undisputedly, the said Petition is filed in the capacity of an Operational Creditor by submitting Form No.5 as prescribed under The Code - We have been informed that the impugned Petition is filed by the Resolution Professional on behalf of S.N. Plumbing. This action of the Resolution Professional is a right recourse for managing the affairs of the financially stressed Company.
Application allowed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1969
Valuation - sealing of machinery and closure of operation - case of Revenue is that once a machine is installed, it shall be determined to be an operating packing machine - HELD THAT:- We are not in position to appreciate the argument of Revenue that once a machine is installed, it shall be treated as operational machine even if the machine was sealed in such a manner that it became unoperative. We do not find any merit in the grounds raised by Revenue.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1968
Export of Basmati Rice - restricted item - The test report stated that the samples did not confirm to standards prescribed in Basmati Rice (Export) Grading and Marketing Rules, 1979 - HELD THAT:- The parameters laid down under the said DGFT Notification dated 5-11-2008 read with Notification No. 57/2009-2014, dated 17-8-2010 have been met with as discussed by the Learned Commissioner in the impugned Order-in-Original - there are no merit in the impugned order in confiscating the goods in question which have already been exported and imposing penalty on the appellant and its proprietor, based on the negative report received from laboratory in the light of Basmati Rice (Export) Grading and Marketing Rules, 1979, especially when the said report was challenged and request for retesting the samples by some other laboratory was made which was rejected without any plausible reasons.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1967
Disallowance of penal interest paid to Government of Gujarat - AO was of the opinion that the nature of expenditure is of penalty which is not allowable as per provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961- HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2012 (11) TMI 351 - ITAT, AHMEDABAD] penal interest in the nature of finance charges for late payment of installment/amount could not be equated with penalty imposable due to some infringement of law. The use of the word "penal interest" as a nomenclature does not mean any penalty for infringement of law. We find that the observations of the CIT(A) that such late payment is against the public policy and amount paid by the same could not be allowed as deductible expenses u/s.37(1A) in view of the explanation to section 37(1), is not sustainable in law. The interest charged at the rate of 2% per month for delayed payment of installment by the assessee-company could not be equated with payment made against the public policy or payment made in contravention of law. We are of the considered view that the interest paid by the assessee on delayed payment of installment to the State of Gujarat is in the nature of financial charges for late payment of installment. In this view of the matter, we hold that no case of disallowance by holding the payment of penal interest as against the public policy could be made out by the department - Decided in favour of assessee.
Disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- It is true that the assessee debited Profit & Loss account by ₹ 5,75,00,227/- and credited the provision for bad and doubtful debts. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT [2010 (4) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT]has observed and held that where assessee bank had written off the impugned bad debts in its books by way of a debit to profit and loss account, simultaneously reducing corresponding amount from loans and advances to debtors depicted on assets side in balance sheet at close of year, the assessee-bank was entitled to deduction under section 36(1)((vii) and for that purpose it was not necessary for it to close individual account of each of its debtors in its books - assessee has reduced loans and advances by the provisions thereby fulfilling all the conditions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Considering these facts in totality, we do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A). - Decided agaist revenue.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1966
Liability to pay interest tax on the interest earned - whether the company does not fall within the definition of term “financial company” as defined in section 2(5B) under the Interest Tax act, 1974? - whether the Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that the assessee was the financial company and that the interest earned by the assessee company was chargeable to tax under the said Act? - HELD THAT:- Definition of term 'financial company' includes several subclauses. Subclause (ii) thereof refers to an investment company i.e. a company which carries on its principal business of acquisition of shares, stocks, bonds, debentures etc. The term 'loan company' is included in subclause (iv) which would include a company which carries on, as its principal business, the business of providing finance, whether by making loans or advances or otherwise. As noted, subclause (vi) would bring within the fold of the term financial company, a miscellaneous finance company, viz. a company which carries on exclusively, or almost exclusively, two or more classes of business referred to in the preceding subclauses. Very clearly, the assessee company was incorporated for carrying on exclusively the business of an investment company and a loan company. All the three principal objects fitted within these two categories. Tribunal therefore correctly held the assessee company to be a financial company. The contention of the counsel for the assessee that not the objects of the company but its real activities during a financial year which should be used as a parameter to decide the status of the company, cannot be accepted.
Awaiting other projects, the company has parked its available funds in shares and stocks and yet further surplus was invested in fixed deposits. Accepting the contention as presented before us would lead to a situation where for the purpose of ascertaining whether a company is a financial company or not, its category from year to year would have to be examined ignoring the objects for which the company is incorporated. In turn, would mean for a particular year the company would be a financial company whereas during the later year, it may not fit the description. Clearly something that cannot be easily envisaged.
Whether the interest earned by the assessee company can still be taxed under the said Act? - In this context, the contention of the counsel for the Revenue, we may recall that the interest was not earned by the company on any loan or advance made but was generated out of its deposits. We are conscious of a clear distinction between a loan or an advance and a deposit. This has been elaborately discussed by Delhi High Court in case of Visisth Chay Vypapar Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 783 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. Had adequate facts being brought on record, in this respect, we would have analyzed such material. However, this appears to be an argument raised for the first time. In fact, the stand of the assessee before the lower authorities was evidently different.
We have reproduced the portion of the contention of the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), recorded by the CIT (Appeals). As argued that the year under consideration was an initial year of the company. No good project was comingforth and therefore in order to avoid keeping the funds idle, the assessee had advanced money and earned interest income and also carried out activities in trading in shares and securities. Thus, clearly even according to the assessee, the interest was earned by advancing its funds. The case now put up before us that such investment was in the nature of a deposit and not by way of advance was never raised earlier. We do not dispute that the term “interest” defined under section 2(7) of the Act would mean interest on loans and advances and if therefore in a given case it is established that the interest earned by the assessee was not out of either loan or advance but through some other source, the interest tax would not apply to such interest. When no such factual dispute was raised, no material on record to hold contrary to what the assessee itself had contended before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the contention of the counsel for the assessee must be rejected.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1965
Unrecorded sales - payment of cash and cheque - Non mentioning section under which the addition was made - HELD THAT:- During the course of hearing assessee could not advance any contrary arguments confronting the orders of the lower authorities - available records that the assessee had received a sum of ₹ 67.50 lacs during the year under consideration which was not recorded in the books of account of the assessee - before the Investigation Wing at New Delhi, Shri Nikhil Tripathi, Director of UTHPL statement was recorded u/s 131 in which he confirmed the payment of cash of ₹ 57.50 lacs and ₹ 10.00 lacs through bearer cheque during the year under consideration and stated that the MOU dated 14-07-2007 was not signed by him but it was a forged document. In this situation, the AO noticed the unrecorded sales of ₹ 67.50 lacs and made the addition in the hands of the assessee .
Appellant received a sum of ₹ 67.50 lacs during the year under consideration which was not recorded in its books of accounts.CIn ground of appeal, it has been stated by the appellant that the AO has not mentioned the section under which the addition was made and he has not verified the bank statement. In this regard, it is stated that non-mentioning of section does not make the assessment bad. Further, for cash transaction, there is no need for verification of the bank statements - Decided against assessee.
Admission of additional evidence filed by the assessee - HELD THAT:- Filing of additional evidence by the ld.AR of the assessee has no relevance as the same has already been taken into consideration in the case of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2007-08. In this view of the matter and facts and circumstances of the case, we concur with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and do not find merit in admitting the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Hence, the additional evidence filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2007-08 is not admitted. Thus Ground of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1964
Service of Notice - Appellant submits that no notice was issued by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) prior to admitting the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The Respondents are allowed to enclose the copy of the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority by which Registry of Tribunal was ordered to issue notice.
Learned counsel for the Appellant next contended that the 'Corporate Debtor' is a non-banking financial Company and is a financial service provider; therefore, it does not come within the definition of 'Corporate Person', nor a 'Corporate Debtor' - Counsel for the Respondent prayed for and is allowed a week's time to file additional affidavit enclosing the copy of the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority by which Registry of Tribunal was ordered to issue notice.
Post the matter on 15th March, 2018.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1963
Recovery of Drawback amount - they had realised the export proceeds well in time and the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered this fact while rejecting their appeal - Rule 16A of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner (Appeals) has categorically observed that the dates of realization of the export proceeds are 20-9-2011, 15-11-2011 and 22-2-2012 in respect of Shipping Bill Nos. 1037266, dated 19-2-2008, No. 1037871, dated 31-3-2008 and Shipping Bill No. 1040217, dated 19-8-2008 respectively. He has further recorded that no document from the RBI regarding extension of initial period of six months for realization of export proceeds has been produced before him. The Government has also noticed that the applicant has not produced any evidence along with the Revision Application or otherwise to prove that they had realized export proceeds in respect of above mentioned three Shipping Bills within specified period of six months from the date of export and dates of realization mentioned by Commissioner (Appeals) in his order are undoubtedly much beyond the prescribed period of six months. No document issued by RBI is also produced to evidence that the applicant was allowed to realize the export proceeds beyond the period of six months.
No extension from RBI is obviously procured and received by the applicant and the copy of BRC is actually not submitted for consideration. Above all, the delay in realization of the export proceeds as mentioned in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which are referred above in this order, also are much beyond the period extended by J & K Bank even though this bank is not a competent authority for giving any such extension - Considering all these facts, the Government finds that the applicant has failed to provide any evidence to establish that they have received export proceeds within six months or within extended time granted by the RBI. Accordingly, no fault is found in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
Revision dismissed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1962
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Petitioners grievance is that the sanction granted by the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 151(2) was a mechanical sanction without due application of mind - HELD THAT:- Issue of proper sanction goes to the root of the issue of jurisdiction. Therefore, it can be raised at any time. So far as the second objection of the Revenue that the statement that the proviso to Section 147of the Act is applicable is an inadvertent error and it does not affect the merits of the case, cannot be accepted. This in view of the fact that whether or not the Jt. CIT had applied his mind to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer while granting sanction or just mechanically granted it can only be inferred from surrounding circumstances. This is more particularly in cases like this, where sanction is accorded by the sanctioning authority without giving separate reasons. Therefore, whether there was due application of mind or mechanical grant of sanction is evident from the surrounding circumstances such as overlooking the reliance upon the proviso when it is clearly inapplicable to in the facts of the case.
In the above view, prima facie the sanction appears to be without due application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. Therefore, in the above view, the impugned notice prima facie is without jurisdiction.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1961
Assessment u/s 153A - addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- In an assessment made u/s.153A for an assessment year for which assessment has not been abated, then the jurisdiction of the AO to make addition in such an assessment, is confined to such incriminating search material and no addition dehors the search material can be made.
In the instant case, we find that during the course of the relevant search only tally data of the assessee company was found which shows that the assessee has received cash credit from M/s Uniworth Agencies Pvt. Ltd. of ₹ 6.92 crores during the year under consideration. The said tally data does not show that the said cash credit was non-genuine or bogus. The argument of DR was that the statement of two persons, namely, Shri Raj Kumar Tharad and Shri Pradeep Kumar Garg were recorded u/s.131 on 13.11.2014 by the Investigating Wing and those statements show that the cash credit provided by M/s Uniworth Agencies Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee was an accommodation entry. According to DR the said statements recorded in post-search enquiry was a search material and, therefore, could be used in making addition even in case of unabated assessment.
These statements were recorded on 13.11.2014 i.e. after completion of the search on 07.11.2014, therefore, these statements were not material found during the course of search. However, nowhere in these statements transactions which took place between the assessee and M/s Uniworth Agencies Pvt. Ltd. were impeached and no evidences were brought on record to show that cash was received from the assessee company by the said M/s Uniworth Agencies Pvt. Ltd. in lieu of cheque issued by that company to the assessee company. Most importantly it is not in dispute that the assessee company was not allowed any opportunity to cross-examine the two makers of the statements before using the same against the assessee. CIT(A) observed that lack of opportunity to cross-examine the operators is not fatal to the addition made by the AO.
CIT(A) is contrary to the decision in case of M/s Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE [2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT] wherein held - According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected.
Addition in the instant case has been made solely on the basis of statement of two persons, who were admittedly entry operators and were not allowed to be cross-examined by the assessee company before assuming their submissions as gospel truth. We, thus, find that these statements are not admissible at all. In absence of these statements, there is absolutely no material available on record on the basis of which the impugned addition can be sustained. We have, therefore, no hesitation in deleting the impugned addition being not on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search as well as being not based on any admissable, reliable and relevant material. Accordingly, addition is deleted and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1960
Depreciation on assets transferred upon amalgamation from the amalgamating company as amalgamated by virtue of the order of the BIFR - HELD THAT:- Substantial question of law at serial No.(1) is covered by the decision of this Court delivered in M/S. BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI. [2017 (9) TMI 490 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT].
Unabsorbed depreciation u/s 32(1) against the assessee
Levy of interest u/s 234C - HELD THAT:- Apex Court in the case of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rolta India Ltd. [2011 (1) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] . Therefore, these substantial questions of law no longer survive for consideration of this Court, and the appeal to that extent is required to be dismissed.
Disallowance as prior period expenses - grant of deduction in the years to which the same relates as per A.O. - Disallowance being expenditure incurred by appellant at its office located at Kolkata.
Legal fees and expenses paid - Assessee submits that in the matter pertaining to Assessment Year 199899, such expenditure has been allowed by the Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax, and in the light of that decision, this question is required to be considered, which can be done by the Assessing Officer, if the matter is remitted back to him for fresh consideration.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1959
Disallowance of depreciation - assets transferred upon amalgamation in the earlier years from the amalgamating company a company amalgamated by virtue of the order of the BIFR - disallowance of expenses which includes placement fees u/s 37 - HELD THAT:- Substantial questions of law at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 are covered against the assessee in [2017 (9) TMI 1867 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ]
Disallowance of prior period expenses - alternate prayer for allowing the deduction in the years to which the same relate as per Assessing Officer - whether expenses are covered by Section 43(B) ? - HELD THAT:- Department has invited our attention to each provision of Section 43(B) of the Income Tax Act which has been relied upon by the Appellate Tribunal to answer the question against the Assessee and has urged that the amount pertaining to the statutory expenses has to be claimed in the year in which such expenses are actually required to be incurred or actually to be paid. According to him, the expenses in question are covered by Section 43(B) and should have been therefore, claimed in the previous year in which actually paid prior to 1998-1999.
We put a specific question to Shri Bhattad to point out any decision holding that if the statutory expenses covered by Section 43(B) are not actually paid during the year in which those are required to be paid then even if such expenses are actually paid in the subsequent year, the deduction cannot be claimed. No such decision is brought to our notice. If the expenses are covered by Section 43(B), there cannot be disputed about its claim for deduction and merely because the deduction was not claimed in the previous year, it would not prevent the assessee from claiming it in the assessment year during which the payment was actually made. The substantial question of law we therefore, answered accordingly. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1958
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice - AO levied the penalty on both the charges i.e. furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as well as concealing the particulars of income - HELD THAT:- As relied on the orders of the lower authorities but it was pointed out to him that how the AO can levy the penalty on both the charges i.e. for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as well as for concealing of particulars of income. The AO is not sure about specific charge for which the assessee is in default, which is clear from above reproduced order of the AO regarding levy of penalty. In view of these facts, we are of the view that the issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Samson Perinchery [2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, we allow this appeal of the assessee.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1957
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - bogus purchases - Assessing Officer received the information from Sales Tax Department -HELD THAT:- Assessing Officer was not having any information at that time because the Assessing Officer received the information from DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai vide letter dated 26.02.2013. When the Assessing Officer was not having any information as on 15.02.2013, therefore, it is strange in which circumstances, the Assessing Officer issued the present notice on the information received through letter dated 26.02.2013 as on date 15.02.2013. The personal knowledge of the Assessing Officer could not be the ground to invoke the proceeding u/s 147/148 of the I.T. Act. Therefore, in the said circumstances the noticed doesn’t seems to be legal. It is held in the case of CIT Vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala [1971 (9) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT] that the notice issued for any invalid reason makes the proceeding void an without jurisdiction - Since the notice is not justifiable and is not in accordance with law, therefore, we set aside the notice u/s 147/148 of the Act. Accordingly, this issue is being decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue.
Bogus purchases - addition confirmed by CIT(A) @ 6% - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, when the assessee has adduced the sufficient evidence on record which has been discussed above, therefore, in the said circumstances, we are of the view that the no addition is required to be made on account of bogus purchase. Non service of noticed is not a ground to raise the addition of bogus purchase to the income of the assessee in view of the law settled in CIT Vs. M/s. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P. Ltd. [2013 (1) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] On seeing the above facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the law settled relied by the Ld. Representative of the assessee, we are of the view that the no addition is required to be raised in the instant case. We ordered accordingly, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee
Disallowance of the television expenses, vehicle expenses, conveyance expenses, office & staff welfare expenses - AO restricted the addition to the extent of 10% on the basis of personal element - HELD THAT:- At the time of the argument the Ld. Representative of the assessee nowhere produced any other cogent evidence in support of his claim. On account of non producing the sufficient evidence in support of the claim, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly restricted the claim to the extent of 10% of the expenses of ₹ 1,34,474/-. Therefore, this issue is being decided in favour of the revenue against the assessee.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1956
100% EOU - duty free import - benefit of N/N. 52/2003 Cus. dated 31.03.2003 - import of various capital goods without payment of duty and bonded the same in their private bonded premises - HELD THAT:- It appears that the appellant’s entitlement to duty free import of various goods under N/N. 52/2003 Cus. dated 31.03.2003 has not properly examined by the lower authorities. When it is so, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Original Authority in the light of the above decisions but after providing an opportunity to the appellant to present their case.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1955
Bogus purchases u/s 69C - closing WIP in respect of certain purchases alleged as bogus - HELD THAT:- Average cost per sq.ft. of assessee ₹ 2,812.87/- per sq.ft. is equivalent to its associate concern M/s. Triveni Properties with project in the same vicinity having average cost as ₹ 2,907/-per sq. ft. Since, no allegation on purchases of said associate concern was made by the department, the average cost per sq. ft. of the assessee is to be accepted. Therefore, there is no question of any inflation of cost or deflation of profit. The assessee had been following Project Completion method since its inception.
Though the AO had adopted percentage completion ( method for A.Y. 2008-09 to AY 2011-12, the Id. CIT(A) had deleted the addition in this respect for A.Y. 2008-09 to A.Y. 2010-11. The revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 and A.Y. 2009-10 was dismissed being below the prescribed tax limit. The revenue is not in appeal against the said deletion for current A.Y. i.e. 2010-11. Thus, project completion method followed by the assessee has been accepted by the revenue. It was submitted by the assessee that since no expenditure/deduction was claimed by the assessee for the year under consideration, no disallowance should be made for the year under consideration based on the decision of the on’ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of M/s. Maruti Impex v. JCIT [2016 (5) TMI 104 - ITAT MUMBAI] & Savala Associates v. ITO [2009 (10) TMI 640 - ITAT MUMBAI]
We uphold addition to the extent of 2% of such bogus purchases during the A.Y.2012-13.
............
|
9911796707
