9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tionate to advances given to Mr. Ramesh Jindal, Mr. Mukesh Dalal and Mr. Kshitij Desai holding that the advances given to them are for non-business purpose. In confirming the disallowance, the Ld. CIT(A)-III, Baroda completely ignored the fact that these advances were given out of own funds." 2.1 It is submitted by the Ld. A.R. that the disallowance of interest is made by the A.O. and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) in respect of advance given to Mr. Ramesh Jindal of Rs.2,21,630/-, Mukesh Dalal Rs.34,57,123/- and Kshitiz Desai Rs.3 lacs, totaling Rs.39.79 lacs approximately. He further submitted that own funds of the assessee as on 31.03.2005 was of Rs.254.25 lacs as per the audited balance sheet submitted and hence, the entire such advance were g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest is not sustainable. We, therefore, delete the same. This ground of the assessee is allowed. 3. Ground No.2 is as under: 2. The Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals) III, Baroda has erred in law and in facts in upholding the action of the Dy. CIT, Circle - 4, Baroda in confirming the disallowance of Rs.4,69,794/- being 50% of incremental salary paid by the appellant company to it's staff members without appreciating the contentions of the appellant. The disallowance of Rs.4,69,794/- being arbitrary and in disregard to the available facts and bad in law is prayed to be deleted." 3.1 Ld. A.R. of the assessee reiterated the same contentions which are raised before Ld. CIT(A). 3.2 Ld. D.R. of the revenue supported the orders of authorities below. 3.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied upon by the appellant are not applicable. The addition made by the Assessing Officer is confirmed." 3.4 From the above para of the order of Ld. CIT(A), we find that a clear finding is given by Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has not discharged its onus by establishing such a sharp rise in salary by giving necessary details and hence, 50% of increase in salary disallowed by the A.O. is justified. We find that it is noted by Ld. CIT(A) in the same para that the increase in salary in the present year is almost 75% over the preceding year which is quite extra ordinary. Before us also, no justifiable reason could be explained by the Ld. A.R. regarding this extra ordinary increase in salary in the present year and, therefore, we do not find any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission of additional evidences under Rule 46A mentioning circumstances; these additional evidences are not considered. In the absence any evidence to prove the ownership of these assets, disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is confirmed." 4.3 From the above para of the order of Ld. CIT(A), we find that the assessee has not furnished the purchase bills in respect of the assets on which depreciation is claimed by it. Depreciation is allowable to the assessee in respect of the assets which are owned by the assessee and which are used by the assessee for its business purpose. The assessee could not establish both of these aspects that it owned the asset in question which was used by it for its business purpose. Therefore, on this issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
