TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. These are assessee's appeals directed against the common order of Ld. CIT(A) - III, Baroda dated 16.10.2008 for the assessment year 2004- 05 and 2005-06. 2. First, we decide the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2004-05 in ITA.No. 90/Ahd/2009. 3. Ground No.1 of the assessee is as under: "1.0 ADDITION DUE TO DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS OF Rs.75.000/-: (Para 4 to 4.1 of the Asstt.Order) (Para 2 to 2.3 of the Appellate Order) 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of your appellant's case and in law the ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.75,000/- as bad debts, on the ground that your appellant has not submitted any evidence to prove that the debt had become bad. 1.2 Your appellant says and submits that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that w.e.f. 1-4-1989 as per the amended S.36(1)(vii) of the Act, no evidence is required in proof of a debt becoming bad, only requirement is that such debt should be written off in the accounts as irrecoverable and prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold so now and delete the impugned addition. 4. It was submitted by the Ld. A.R. that now, this issue is squarely covered in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es incurred by the assessee are excessive. It was the submission that the matter may be restored back to the file of the A.O. for a fresh decision after allowing the assessee reasonable opportunity to establish his case regarding reasonableness of the payment made by the assessee. 8. Ld. D.R. supported the orders of authorities below. 9. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that it is noted by the A.O. in para 5.1 o the assessment order that the assessee was asked to prove reasonableness of payment made on account of vehicle rent but the assessee failed to offer any satisfactory explanation or any comparison of other person in this regard. Ld. CIT(A) has stated in his order that Income tax Disarmament hires best of cars for less than Rs.25,000/- per month which also includes maintenance and driver's salary and, therefore, the payment made by the assessee for vehicle hiring is excessive. In our considered opinion, one more opportunity may be allowed to the assessee in the interest of justice to prove its case that the payment made by it to the related person for hiring the car ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directing the ld. A.O. to reduce 80-IB deduction while computing deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. 4.2 Your appellant says and submits that the deduction to allowable u/s 80-IB cannot be reduced from profits for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act, since both the provisions are independent of each other and therefore, the same are available simultaneously and without one influencing the other and prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold so now and direct the ld. A.O. to allow deduction u/s 80HHC and 80-IB accordingly." 13. It was submitted by the Ld. A.R. of the assessee that now there is a recent judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court on this issue which is rendered in the case of Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT as reported in 332 ITR 42 and in that case, Hon'ble Bombay High Court has duly considered all the available Tribunal decisions being the decision rendered in the case of ACIT vs Hindustan Mint and Agro Products P. Ltd. as reported in 315 (A.T.) 0401 (ITAT Del.) and the other tribunal decision rendered in the case of ACIT vs Ragini Garments as reported in 294 ITR (A.T.) 15. It was also submitted that other available judgements of var ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant's case and in law the ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming that amount of duty draw back is required to be excluded from the profits for computing deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act. 2.2 Your appellant says and submits that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that amount of duty draw back is income derived from an industrial undertaking and eligible for deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act and prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold so now and direct the Ld. A.O. to allow deduction u/s 80-IB on the impugned amount of duty draw back. 3.0 ADDITION DUE TO DISALLOWANCE OUT OF OFFICE EXPENSES (Para 4.2 of the Asstt. Order) (Para 9.3 of the Appellate Order) 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of your appellant's case and in law, the ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.62,410/- out of office expenses on the ground that there is huge increase in the expenses compared to the last year and most of the expenses were incurred in cash. 3.2 Your appellant says and submits that for the impugned expenditure, full details whereof are on record, was incurred by it in its capacity as a business house wholly and exclusively for the purposes of its busin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
