|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 1831 Records
-
2017 (5) TMI 1433
Conversion from public to private company - Alternation of articles by special resolution subject to the approval by the tribunal - Held that:- Petitioner has complied with provisions of Section 14 to be read with Rule 68 of NCLT Rules, 2016. Therefore, having regard to all the circumstances, the conversion from public to private is in the interest of the Company which is being made with a view to comply efficiently with the provisions of Companies Act, 2013 causing no prejudice either to the members or to the creditors of the Petitioner. Therefore, the conversion is hereby allowed. The Petitioner is hereby directed to give effect of the conversion by requisite alteration in its Articles which is hereby addressed and communicate the altered Articles within a period of 15 days to the Registrar.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1432
Claim of 'Operational Creditor' within the meaning of sections 8 & 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - whether insolvency process be initiated against Respondent 'Corporate Debtor' as it has committed default and has not been able to pay despite the demand made - Held that:- Debt may arise out of provision of goods or services or dues arising out of employment or dues arising under any law for time being in force and payable to the Centre/State Government. The framer of the Code have also defined the expression 'Financial Debt' in section 5(8) to mean a debt which is disbursed against the consideration of time value of money. However the framer of the Code has not included in the expression 'Operation Debt' as any debt other than the 'Financial Debt'. It is thus confined to aforesaid four categories like goods, services, employment and Government dues. In the present case the debt has not arisen out of the provisions of goods or services. The debt has also not arisen out of employment or the dues which are payable under the statute to the Centre/State Government or local body. The refund sought to be recovered is necessarily associated with the delivery of the possession of immovable property which has been delayed.
The 'Operational Creditors' are those persons to whom the 'Corporate Debt' is owed and whose liability from the entity comes from a transaction on operations. The final report of the Committee in para 5.2.1 defines 'Operational Creditor' like the wholesale vendor of spare parts whose spark plugs are kept in inventory by Car Mechanic and who gets paid only after spark plugs are sold to acquire the status of 'Operational Creditor' so and so forth. The Petitioner in the present case has neither supplied any goods nor has rendered any service to acquire the status of an 'Operational Creditor'.
As given the time line in the code it is not possible to construe section 9 read with section 5(20) & (21) of the Code so widely to include within its scope even the cases where dues are on account of advance made to purchase the flat or a commercial site from a construction company like the Respondent in the present case especially when the Petitioner has remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act and the General Law of the land. Therefore we are not inclined to admit the petition.
The petitioners cannot be treated as 'Operational Creditor' within the meaning of section 9 as the debt incurred by the respondents has not arisen out of provisions of goods, services or employment. It can also not be considered 'Financial Debt' within the meaning of section 5(8) to mean a debt which is disbursed against the consideration of the time value or money.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1431
Default under Negotiable Instruments Act - whether an offence under Section 138 of the Act can be said to have been committed when the period provided for under Section 138 Clause (c) of the proviso has not expired? - Held that:- The complaint under the Act filed before the expiry of 15 days is pre-mature and cannot be treated as a legally constituted complaint in the eyes of law. Therefore, the proceedings initiated on the basis of such complaint are liable to be quashed and set-aside.
Resultantly, there is merit in this petition and the same is accordingly allowed and the judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- as compensation under Section 138 of the Act, is set-aside.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1430
Offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act - Held that:- The trial court has erred in convicting the respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as the appellant has failed to produce cogent and reliable evidence in support of his claim made in the complaint. The appellate court has rightly appreciated the evidence produced by the parties and has not committed any illegality in setting aside the judgment passed by the trial court and in acquitting the respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1429
Regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case registered under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA - Held that:- Admitted position is that the premises where raid was conducted on 10.12.2016 i.e. R-89, Greater Kailash part-I, New Delhi, did not belong to the petitioner. It is also admitted that at the time of recovery of ₹ 2.62 crores in the denomination of ₹ 2000 currency notes, the petitioner was not present in the said premises.
When specifically enquired as to how the money recovered from Rohit Tandon’s premises was connected with the petitioner, the learned counsel informed that statements of co-accused Rohit Tandon and his employees have been recorded and they have disclosed in their statements that the currency belonged to the petitioner. These statements are to be tested during trial. Status report reveals that Vijay Kumar @ Kant Mishra has claimed ownership of the new currency recovered from the spot before Income Tax Department. No credible evidence is on record to infer as to whom the money belonged and how the petitioner was beneficiary.
Considering the above facts and circumstances and detention period undergone by the petitioner since 19.12.2016, he is admitted to bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹ 5 lacs with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1428
Reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - Held that:- In the present case, as already noticed, the reasons to believe contain not the reasons but the conclusions of the AO one after the other. There is no independent application of mind by the AO to the tangible material which forms the basis of the reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. The conclusions of the AO are at best a reproduction of the conclusion in the investigation report. Indeed it is a 'borrowed satisfaction'.
The reasons fail to demonstrate the link between the tangible material and the formation of the reason to believe that income has escaped assessment.
The Court is satisfied no error has been committed by the ITAT in the impugned order in concluding that the initiation of the proceedings under Section 147/148 to reopen the assessments for the AYs in question does not satisfy the requirement of law. The question framed is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1427
Renewal of the exemption under Section 80G(5) denied - as during the search and seizure operations an unaccounted cash was recovered and as such the assessee respondent was not properly maintaining its books of accounts - Held that:- Tribunal is not justified that as the respondent assessee meets the requirement of the above conditions contained in sub-section 10(23C), it is also entitle to the benefit under Section 80G of the Act.
There is no dispute that search and seizure operation was carried out in the premises of the respondent assessee and that a sum of ₹ 11.25 lacs was recovered in cash. This amount was not shown in the account books maintained by the respondent assesssee. It has come on record that the respondent assessee admitted before the Income Tax Settlement Commission that the cash found during the search and seizure operations amounting to ₹ 11.25 lacs belonged to it and that the receipts relating to this cash were not recorded in the account books.
The above very fact clearly establishes beyond any doubt that the respondent assessee was not maintaining regular accounts of its receipts and expenditure. It is precisely on this ground that the application for renewal of approval/registration has been rejected.
Assessee failed to fulfill one of the essential conditions for grant of renewal of approval/registration under Section 80G of the Act, we are of the opinion that the tribunal committed manifest error of law in setting aside the order of the Commissioner and in directing for grant of registration under Section 80G(5) to the respondent assessee.
The fulfilment of conditions under Section 10(23C) of the Act is only one of the conditions prescribed under Section 80G of the Act but besides the said condition other conditions are also necessary to be satisfied for claiming benefit of Section 80 G of the Act. The respondent assessee failed to satisfy one of those conditions as mentioned earlier.
Question of law answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee and it is held that benefit under Section 80 G shall only be available on the strict compliance of the conditions laid down therein and not merely by satisfying the conditions of Section 10 (23 C) of the Act.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1426
Validity of assessment u/s 153C - Whether the ITAT was correct in holding that in the absence of any satisfaction of AO of the searched person, the assessment framed by invoking the provisions of Section 153C cannot be sustained? - Held that:- The Court finds that there is no discussion in the impugned order of the ITAT on whether the documents referred to in the Satisfaction Note were, in fact, incriminating. The ITAT invalidated the proceedings under Section 153 C of the Act only on the ground of there being no Satisfaction Note by the AO of the searched person. As discussed earlier, this was factually erroneous. There was no occasion for the ITAT to examine the other grounds of challenge to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153 C of the Act.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 13th March 2015 of the ITAT is hereby set side. The Court restores to the file of the ITAT for a further hearing all the appeals in which the impugned order was passed for consideration of the further grounds including the question whether the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO under Section 153C qua the Assessee was justified on the ground that the documents seized and stated to belong to the Assessee were not incriminating.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1425
Revision petition u/s 264 - Assessment u/s 153A/153C - satisfaction note - assumption of jurisdiction by the AO under Section 153C of the Act was illegal and therefore the entire proceedings were void ab initio - HELD THAT:- In the Ganpati cases, the satisfaction note clearly records the view that the documents listed therein belong to the other person. The satisfaction note is of the AO of the searched person who also happens to be the AO of the other person i.e. Ganpati. Merely because the note also does not categorically state that the documents mentioned therein do not belong to the searched person (Aseem Kumar Gupta Group) will not invalidate the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C qua Ganpati.
The view taken by the CIT in the impugned order does not call for interference. The remand to the AO for giving Ganpati a further opportunity regarding the nature of the documents and the validity of the additions made as a result thereof also calls for no interference. The writ petitions by Ganpati fail and are hereby dismissed.
Orders in the cases of Shushre and Shrey - The Court notes that in the impugned orders dismissing the revision petitions of Shushre and Shrey, the CIT has noted that despite several opportunities being granted to the ARs of the Assessees, they did not appear and "no submissions on merits of the case" were made by the two Assessees during present proceedings. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the CIT for declining to interfere on merits with the additions made by the AO.
Even otherwise, in these writ proceedings, it is difficult for the Court to examine the documents seized and determine if in fact they could be said to be incriminating qua each of the said Assessees. There could be instances where the very nature of the document for e.g., a balance sheet or P&L account of the Assessee, which already stood disclosed during the original assessment proceedings, can be said to be non-incriminating. That again will depend on the facts and circumstances.
However, the documents listed out in both the above satisfaction notes qua Shushre and Shrey are not such that can be said to be non-incriminating on a bare perusal. There was sufficient opportunity for both Assessees to demonstrate how they were not. But they did not avail of the opportunity. In the writ jurisdiction, this Court has to be satisfied that the CIT's impugned orders are not unfair, unjust or irrational and are consistent with the basic procedural requirements. On none of these counts do the impugned orders of the CIT in the present case warrant interference. Consequently, the petitions of Shushre and Shrey also are held to be without merit.
The impugned orders of the CIT are accordingly upheld and all the writ petitions are dismissed
-
2017 (5) TMI 1424
Cognizance against the petitioner under Section(s) 276C (1) and 276C (2) - Held that:- In the instant case from the facts mentioned, in detail, it is apparent that the petitioner has not been exonerated by the Income Tax Department in the adjudication proceeding till date. The assessment done by the Income Tax Department has been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court. As per own averment of the petitioner, Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner is still pending in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
In such circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 01.02.2013 passed by the Presiding Officer (Special Court), Economic Offences, Patna, in Complaint Case taking cognizance against the petitioner under Section(s) 276(1) and 276(2) of the Income Tax Act.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1423
Interest on Advanced Tax - Non grant of credit for cash seized during search - charge of Interest u/s. 234B and 234C - Held that:- We find that it is not disputed that assessee has offered the amounts seized as undisclosed income during search. The revenue has also accepted the same as assessee’s income. In such situation when assessee has requested to adjust the cash seized against the assessee’s liability towards tax the authorities below have erred a not adjusting the cash seized against the tax liability including of tax liability.
In this regard we note that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Jyotindra B. Mody [2011 (9) TMI 97 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] had held that once assessee offers to tax undisclosed income including the amounts seized during search, the liability to pay advance tax in respect of that amount arises even before completion of the assessment. The Hon'ble High Court further held that section 132 B(1) of the Act does not prohibit utilization of amounts seized during the course of search towards the advance tax liability.
Provision of Explanation 2 to Section 132 (B) (4) which excludes advance tax from the ambit of existing liability is applicable from 1st June 2013 and not applicable to the assessment years involved in this appeal.
Thus we find that assessee was entitled to adjustment of cash seized and offered for taxation towards its liability for taxes including advance tax. Hence in our considered opinion the authorities below have erred in charging interest u/s. 234 B and 234 C on the facts of the circumstances of the case. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1422
Best judgment assessment - non opportunity of being heard - Held that:- Admittedly, the assessment was framed consequent to the directions issued by the Additional CIT and as per the directions, claim of the assessee for computing the long term capital gain was to be rejected and it was to be computed as a short term capital gain, meaning thereby that the directions of the Additional CIT was prejudicial to the assessee and before the issue of the same, an opportunity of being heard should have been afforded to the assessee as per the proviso to section 144A of the Act. Unfortunately the Additional CIT has not afforded any opportunity of being heard before issuing such directions.
Thus it is of the view that capital gain computed pursuant to the directions of the Additional CIT deserves to be set aside. Accordingly set aside the order of the AO passed consequent to the directions of the Additional CIT for computing the capital gain and restore the matter to the file of the AO to recompute the capital gain after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. If the AO feels that the direction of Additional CIT is to be complied with, he may place the matter before the Additional CIT to first afford opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then readjudicate the issue afresh and directions be issued thereafter. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1421
Penalty u/s. 271B - non enclosure of audit report to the return of income - Held that:- As seen from the order of the AO u/s. 153C, it is very clear that AO has initiated penalty proceedings for not enclosing the audit report, but not for completing the audit before the due date. Board Circular No. 5 of 2007 clearly states that while uploading the return, no audit report should be attached to the return and also further states that it should not be furnished separately also before or after due date. Non-enclosure of audit report to the return of income does not attract any penalty u/s. 271B, as specified in the Board Circular extracted above. Since AO has initiated the penalty proceedings only for non-enclosure of audit report along with the Return, we are of the opinion that the same is not attracting penalty, on the facts of the case, as assessee has complied with the Board Circular.
If the audit report was not enclosed to the return of income filed by assessee subsequently in response to proceedings u/s. 153C, AO should have treated the return as defective return. No such action was taken by the AO, which indicates that the return is complete in all respects. Since prior approval of the Addl. CIT u/s. 153D was also taken by the AO before completion of assessment, we are of the opinion that non enclosure of audit report to the return of income does not attract penalty proceedings u/s. 271B. Accordingly, penalty levied is cancelled. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1420
Deduction u/s 80IB(10) - whether the assessee is a developer - assessee was not the owner of the land on which the project was constructed and approval by the local authority was not granted to the assessee but to the land owner - Held that:- The business model adopted by the assessee does not vitiate the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) but then the Assessing Officer has primarily declined the deduction with that basic approach. There is no dispute regarding assessee having taken the entrepreneurial risk and acted as an entrepreneur rather than as a contractor, and that is what is relevant. In view of the above discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we approve the conclusions arrived at by the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1419
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - suppression in closing stock - Held that:- In the present case, the AO has not collected any incriminating material against the assessee with regard to the closing stock of shares of Apollo Tyres valuing ₹ 60,58,065/- . The disclosure was made by the assessee through revised computation of income vide letter dated 8/8/06 and not under the constraint of exposure to adverse action by the AO. It is, thus, the case where disclosure has been made voluntarily and out of free will, but not under compulsion. Taking the entire gamut of the case into account, we note that there was no case for the AO that the explanation offered by the assessee was not bona fide or there was a concealment.
It is repeatedly held by the Courts that the penalty on the ground of concealment of particulars or non-disclosure of full particulars can be levied only when in the accounts/ return an item has been suppressed dishonestly or the item has been claimed fraudulently or a bogus claim has been made. When the facts are clearly disclosed in the return of income, penalty cannot be levied and merely because an amount is not allowed or taxed to income, it cannot be said that the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars or concealed any income chargeable to tax. Further, conscious concealment is necessary. Even if some deduction or benefit is claimed by the assessee wrongly but bonafide and no malafide can be attributed, the penalty would not be levied.
As argued that not filing correct return of income is equal to filing incorrect return of income and therefore the assessee can be said to be guilty of filing inaccurate particulars of income but for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) this status is not sufficient. The AO has to show by some positive material with which he can compare that what was filed by the assessee was inaccurate or was false leading to the inference that the assessee has concealed income or filed inaccurate particulars of income. Mere disallowance or not accepting the claim of the assessee will not be sufficient.
The assessee had disclosed all material facts, it is held that there is no case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of its income in respect of the disallowances. In view of above, we note that the case law relied upon by Ld. DR in the case of Mak Data (P) Ltd. vs. CIT-II (Sura) is relating to voluntary disclosure and hence, distinguished to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the AO was not justified in levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(C) in respect of the said disallowances. Accordingly, the same was rightly cancelled, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty in dispute and reject the ground raised by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1418
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - whether assessee has concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and called for explanation from the assessee - Held that:- In the present case, the assessee has disclosed all the particulars before completion of the assessment u/s 143(3), though the details were filed in the scrutiny proceeding. Further, scrutiny assessment proceedings have taken for AY 2011-12, but, the assessee has disclosed all the details in respect of 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010- 11 also. Therefore, the attempt made by the assessee to disclose the particulars of income shows the bonafides of assessee.
In the present case, the assessee has discharged the burden by giving detailed explanation before the AO. The AO simply rejected the explanation without discharging the burden cast upon him, as the assessee has disclosed the particulars of income in the scrutiny assessment.We find that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) has dealt with the issue in correct perspective.
Thus we are of the view that the case of the assessee is not a fit case to attract the provisions of section 271(1)(c) - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1417
Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) - defective notice - Held that:- After perusing the notice dated 31.12.2007 issued by the AO to the assessee, we are of the view that the AO has initiated the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income, but in the penalty order dated 06.11.2009 he has stated that he is satisfied that the assessee has furnished the inaccurate particulars of income. In our view the penalty in dispute is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because the AO has not recorded any clear finding whether the assessee was guilty of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Secondly, the notice u/s. 271(1)(c) has been issued to the assessee levying the penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income, whereas the penalty in dispute has been levied by the AO on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Thus we delete the penalty in dispute and decide the issue in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1416
Interest income as a member of the AOP - Method of computing a member’s share in income of association of persons or body of individuals - Held that:- As per section 67A, the total income of the AOP from all the heads of income should be computed and, then, any salary, interest, bonus, commission or remuneration paid to member of the AOP shall be deducted from the total income of the AOP. Balance, if any, should be apportioned in the hands of members of the AOP in proportionate to their share holding ratio in the AOP. The share of profit or loss and the salary, remuneration, interest etc. paid to the member of the AOP constitute the share income of the member which should be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee since the shares of the AOP are determinate.
In the instant case assessee is member of AOP and received interest as member of the AOP, hence as per section 67A, the income has to be computed in the hands of AOP and the share income has to be brought to tax in the hands of member of AOP. This issue has not been considered by this AO or CIT(A). Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the issue should be remitted back to the file of the AO to consider taxing the share income of the assessee as per the provisions of section IT Act. This view is supported by the Hon’ble MP High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. D&H Secheron Electrodes Ltd. [2005 (1) TMI 92 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court]. Accordingly, we set aside the issue in dispute to the file of the AO with a direction to compute the income of the AOP and the share income of the AOP in the hands of the Members of AOP i.e. assessee. Accordingly, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1415
Claim of Depreciation after claiming exemption u/s 11 - whether claim of depreciation by assessee trust would amount to double deduction? - Held that:- We find that the issue is squarely covered by a decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of ACIT vs. Vishwachetan Foundation IBMR [2016 (6) TMI 792 - ITAT BANGALORE] as relying on DIT (Exemptions) v. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust [2016 (3) TMI 462 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein held while acquiring the capital assets what is allowed as exemption is the income out of which such acquisition of asset is made and when the depreciation deduction is allowed in the subsequent years, it is for the losses or the expenses representing the wear and tear of such capital asset incurred, if not allowed then there is no way to preserve the corpus of the trust for deriving its income. - Decided against revenue
-
2017 (5) TMI 1414
Disallowance u/s 43B on account of sales tax & central sale tax - Held that:- A similar view as taken by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court on this issue in the case of India Carbon Ltd. (1992 (9) TMI 83 - GAUHATI High Court) has been taken by Hon'ble Calcutta jurisdictional High Court in the case of A.W. Figgis And Co. A.W. Figgis And Co. vs. CIT (2002 (4) TMI 40 - CALCUTTA High Court) by holding that Sec. 43B can be applied only on tax or duty which has been claimed as expenditure, but the same remains unpaid on the due date. While arriving at this decision, Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has taken into consideration certain case laws relevant to the point including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (1972 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court)- Decided against revenue.
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) on account of payment of consultancy charges made without deducting tax at source - Held that:- There was a mistake on the part of accountant of the assessee-company to show the said amount as consultancy charges and since the same was established by the assessee by bringing relevant and cogent evidence in the form of invoice issued by the supplier, we are of the view that the CIT(Appeals) was fully justified in accepting the claim of assessee on this issue and deleting the disallowance made by AO u/s 40(a)(i) by holding that tax at source was not required to be deducted by assessee from the payment of ₹ 60,92,457/- as the same was made towards supply of software and hardware. - Decided against revenue
Addition on account of consultancy charges - failure to file the required documents in support of the claim for said consultancy charges - Held that:- The documentary evidence filed by the assessee for the first time before the CIT(Appeals) and since the said evidence was not filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings for the reason explained by the assessee, the CIT(Appeals) forwarded the same to the assessee for his verification and comments. In the remand report submitted to the CIT(Appeals), the AO however did not make any adverse comment on the additional evidence filed by the assessee in support of its case and keeping in view the same as well as all the other facts of the case, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of CIT(Appeals) deleting the disallowance made by the AO on this issue to the extent of ₹ 42,03,229/-. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the assessee, the Revenue has challenged the relief given by the CIT(Appeals) on this issue in the ground raised with specific reference of 40(a)(i) of the Act for the failure of the assessee to deduct tax at source from the relevant payment whereas the provisions of Sec. 40(a)(i) of the Act introduced with effect from assessment year 2004-05 are actually not applicable to the year of A.Y. 2003-04.
Disallowance u/s. 40A(3) - Held that:- It is observed that the expenditure incurred by the assessee in cash was partly covered by the exceptional circumstances as prescribed in Rule 6DD inasmuch as the said expenditure was incurred by the assessee at different sites situated in remote places where banking facilities were not available. A finding of fact in this regard has been recorded by CIT(Appeals) in his impugned order after verifying the relevant details and documents furnished by the assessee and after obtaining remand report from the AO wherein no adverse comments were offered. At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. DR has not been able to rebut or controvert these finding recorded by CIT(Appeals). We therefore find no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of CIT(Appeals)
Disallowance made by the AO out of various expenses - Held that:- No specific or material defects were pointed out by the AO to dispute or doubt the genuineness of the said expenditure incurred by the assessee or its business expediency. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that ad hoc disallowance made by the AO out of various expenses arbitrarily was excessive and unreasonable and CIT(Appeals) is fully justified to restrict the same to the reasonable extent. When the Ld. DR has sought to contend that the CIT(Appeals) has also not given any basis for the disallowance sustained by him out of various expenses, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has pointed out that the CIT(Appeals) has finally sustained disallowance to the extent 10% of the expenses claimed by the assessee under various heads and keeping in view that the net profit rate declared by assessee for the year under consideration was higher than that of the immediately preceding year, we find that the disallowance so sustained by CIT(Appeals) is quite tame and reasonable.
............
|
9911796707
