TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act – Held that:- CIT(A) has deleted the addition by taking into consideration the fact that the assessee itself has offered the amount to tax in the AY 2010-11 – the assessee maintains account on mercantile basis and can make a provision for an expense in the accounts on an estimate basis, once it is determined that the liability on an expenditure has accrued, even the actual determination of amount is not possible – Assessee filed computation of total income and Balance Sheet & P&L a/c together with the schedules along with ledger account of miscellaneous receipt which the account has been credited with and it is clear that the appellant has itself credited the account u/s 41(1), with this liability for A.Y. 2010-11 - the assessee has off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x in the A.Y.2010-11. 3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in holding that unproved liabilities cannot be brought to tax in the current year as it will amount to double taxation as the assessee has offered these liabilities to tax in the A.Y .2010-11. 4) The appellant craves leave to add, to amend and /or to alter any of the grounds of appeal, if need be. 2. Ground no. 1 is regarding applicability of Rule 8D for disallowance u/s 14A. We have heard the Ld. DR as well as Ld. AR and considered the relevant material on record. The Assessing Officer has made disallowance u/s 14A by applying Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules. 3. On appeal, CIT(A) has held that Rule 8D is not app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the details filed by the assessee that the assessee has made the provisions for liability of Transshipment charges for the A.Y. under consideration amounting to Rs. 21,88,827/-. On query the assessee submitted that these charges are paid by the agents but since the assessee has not received the bills from the agents for reimbursement of the amounts, therefore, the assessee has shown these charges payable under the head provision for Transshipment charges. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assesee and made the addition of the said amount u/s 41(1) of Income Tax Act. 7. On appeal, CIT(A) has deleted the addition by taking into consideration the fact that the assessee itself has offered the said amount to tax in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
