Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 41 - ITAT DELHIAddition on account of excess consumption of Raw Material - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- Assessee was subject to VAT and Excise and both departments has accepted the financial result of the assessee. AO was not justified in making addition by rejecting of books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Act. CIT(A) has noted that in the remand proceedings, no adverse comments were offered by AO. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by Revenue. Thus no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) on this issue and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. Addition on account of foreign exchange fluctuation - aggregate foreign exchange loss to be without any basis and accordingly, disallowed the same - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) while deciding the issue has given a categorical finding that with respect to the loss it was on account of capital goods and the assessee had made the adjustment to the cost of assets and had not claimed any expense on account of foreign exchange fluctuation on capital goods - as noted that in the remand report, AO has not given any adverse finding on the submissions made by assessee. Find force in the conclusion of CIT(A) that since assessee has not claimed any expenses the disallowance by AO was not sustainable, Before us, Revenue has not pointed to any fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. Disallowance of Guest House Expenses - Addition partly deleted by CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- As per CIT-A disallowance made at 50% by AO to be on higher side and restricted the disallowance to 20%, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by Revenue nor is the assessee aggrieved by partial relief granted by CIT(A). No reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. Disallowance of repair and maintenance expenses - AO noted that assessee has failed to produce the copies of the bills to substantiate its claim of expenses - As possibility of debiting expenses of capital nature cannot be ruled out considered 25% of Repair and maintenance not allowable - CIT-A allowed claim - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) while deleting the addition has given a finding that AO has made the disallowance without pointing out any defects in the books of accounts of the assessee and that the expenses were incurred for the purpose of business and allowable u/s 37(1) - He therefore deleted the addition made by AO. No fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by Revenue. No reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. Addition made on account of royalty payment - AO noted that the agreement filed by the assessee was not made on stamp paper and therefore according to AO it had no legal sanctity - As noted agreement entered by assessee was for ‘Technical Support Agreement’ and not for the ‘Royalty’ or for the technical know-how for which royalty was paid, therefore held the payment of royalty to be without any cogent basis, thus disallowed 10% of the royalty payment - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) while deleting the addition has noted that AO had allowed royalty expenditure to 90% and disallowed 10%. He noted that the royalty payment made by assessee was not found to be bogus and since the assessee had furnished necessary evidence for making royalty payment, the adhoc disallowance could not be made. He thus deleted the addition made by AO. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by Revenue. We find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. Addition on account of Job work expenses - AO noted that assessee did not file any deposits of expenses nor produced copy of the bills and vouchers - Addition deleted by CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) after considering the details and remand report furnished by assessee has given a finding that during the course of remand proceedings, AO had verified the details of expenses that were filed by assessee and he has accepted the payments made and had also given a finding that assessee had deducted TDS on contractual payment. Considering the totality of the facts, CIT(A) directed that the addition be deleted. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by Revenue. In such a situation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed.
|