New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (7) TMI 684 - ITAT HYDERABAD

2015 (7) TMI 684 - ITAT HYDERABAD - TMI - Addition made as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - Held that:- A conclusion can be drawn that the assessee was never asked to produce the creditors. If the department had any doubt with regard to the genuineness of the transaction or creditworthiness of the creditors, they should have made proper enquiry and brought positive material on record to establish such fact. More so, when not only the identity of the creditors are available with the department, b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he entries made in the books of account showing the credit as share application money. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the assessee having proved the credits by establishing the identity of the creditors, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditors, through proper documentary evidence, he is not required to prove any further. Therefore, on overall consideration of facts and materials on record, we are of the view that no addition under section 68 of the Act can .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as established the identity of the creditors by furnishing confirmation letters containing their name, address, income tax particulars etc. The entire transaction is through proper banking channel, thereby, proving its genuineness. Lastly, all creditors are income tax assessees which prove the source of credits. Therefore, following our detailed reasoning in paragraph Nos.13 to 13.3 in case of share application money, which also equally applies to the trade creditors, we delete the addition of & .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

,185 is sustained. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Disallowance of interest expenditure claimed - Held that:- The primary contention of the assessee is that the investments made are out of surplus fund and no interest bearing fund has been utilized. In our view, the aforesaid facts require verification since if there is no nexus between the investment made and the borrowed fund, then, no disallowance can be made. As these aspects are not examined by either A.O. or learned CIT( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ptable. As held by the ITAT, Vizag Special Bench in the case of Merylin Shipping and Transport (2012 (4) TMI 290 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM), no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) can be made if the entire amount was paid during the relevant previous year and nothing remained payable. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court also in case of CIT vs. Vector Shipping Services P. Ltd., [2013 (7) TMI 622 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] expressed similar view. Therefore, following the aforesaid decisions, we direct the A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

However, on going through the provision of section 36(1)(vii) read with sub-section (2), it is very much clear that the only condition which are required to be satisfied are, it must have been shown as income in the earlier assessment year and it is actually written off in the books of account. There is no necessity on the part of the assessee to prove that the debt has become irrecoverable. Therefore, keeping in view the clear statutory provision, we direct the A.O. to verify these aspects and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng authorized share capital is a capital expenditure, hence, cannot be allowed. - Decided against assessee.

Disallowance of employees contribution to ESI and PF - assessee has not remitted the employees contribution to PF and ESI within the prescribed date as mentioned in section 36(1)(va) - It is the contention of the assessee that the employees contribution to ESI and PF though, was not paid within the due date as prescribed under section 36(1)(va) but such dues having been paid bef .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

provision of section 43B. In view of the afore said, we delete the addition of ₹ 2,07,209 - Decided in favor of assessee. - ITA.No.1480/Hyd/2014 - Dated:- 15-7-2015 - Shri Saktijit Dey and Shri Inturi Rama Rao, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. A.V. Raghuram & Mr. T. Chaitanya Kumar For the Respondent : Mr. D. Srinivasa ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.08.2014 of ld. CIT(A)-IV, Hyderabad for AY 2007-08. 2. As per the revised .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s who have invested the amounts in the share capital of the Appellant Company are men of means and are income tax assessees and therefore the addition could not have been made in the hands of the Appellant. 3. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 6,51,93,703/- in respect of trade credits. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the parameters applied for making addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, cannot be applied with equal for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llate order, the learned CIT(A) ought to have deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer . 2.1. In addition, assessee has also sought permission to raise the following additional grounds: ADDITIONAL GROUNDS 6. Without prejudice to ground no.5 raised above, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the above payment towards hire purchase installments on vehicles could not have been disallowed in view of the fact that no amount remained payable as at the end of the y .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tful debts without appreciating the fact that under the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of-the Income Tax Act it is not essential for the Appellant to prove the fact of debt becoming bad to the hilt and it is sufficient if the Appellant has offered the income and has written it off as bad and doubtful in its books of account. 8. The The learned Commissioner (Appeals) / Assessing Officer erred in disallowing interest on car finance paid to various banks amount to ₹ 3,78,909, interest on lo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ontributions to ESI and Provident Fund beyond due dates prescribed under respective statutes, but paid before filing the return of income under the Income Tax Act. 2.2. Assessee has also filed a petition under Rule-11 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 explaining the reasons why additional grounds could not be raised before ld. CIT(A). 3. After hearing the submissions of the parties, we are inclined to admit the additional grounds of assessee considering the fact that the issues raised therein arise out of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing equipments. For the impugned assessment year, assessee filed its return of income on 15.11.2007 declaring total income of ₹ 3,05,94,470. During the assessment proceeding, AO noticed that assessee, in the PY relevant to AY under dispute, has introduced an amount of ₹ 9,88,50,000 as share application money in its books of account. From the details furnished by assessee, AO found that the amount has been introduced in the names of 19 persons as under: Sl.No. Name of share applicant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ishi Enterprises 19,20,000 19. K. Vijaya Laxmi 3,50,121 7. To a query raised by AO, it was explained by assessee that during relevant financial year, two of its Directors, namely Shri K. Laxma Reddy and Smt. Vijay Laxma Reddy have brought in share capital to the tune of ₹ 9,88,50,000 consisting of their individual contribution of ₹ 19,44,371 and ₹ 3,57,121 respectively and the amounts borrowed from different individuals amounting to ₹ 9,65,48,508 to meet the fund requirem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssessee has not produced copies of the personal agreements entered by Directors with various individuals nor it has produced communication with various creditors. Therefore, AO called upon assessee to prove identity of share applicants and their creditworthiness as well as genuineness of the transaction. In response to the query made, as observed by A.O. in the assessment order, assessee submitted confirmation letters in respect of the following 7 persons covering an amount of ₹ 2,95,91,39 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

them have explained the source of the amounts advanced. He also observed, assessee could not file any evidence to prove the creditworthiness of the share applicants. Thus, AO observed that even though all the creditors/share applicants are assessed to tax, but, since the amounts advanced are huge without verifying their source of income, amounts advanced by them cannot be treated as genuine. Further, AO observed that assessee did not furnish confirmation letters in respect of 12 creditors/share .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted confirmation letters in respect of 12 share applicants/creditors for the amount of ₹ 7,44,17,609, which could not be produced at the time of assessment proceeding. On the basis of the confirmation letters submitted by assessee, Ld. CIT(A) called for remand report from A.O. After perusing the remand report of A.O, ld. CIT(A) found that in case of Shri R. Rashmi Reddy, advance of ₹ 5 lakh was made in AY 2005-06. Therefore, since the credit does not pertain to the year under conside .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

enuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditors. He also referred to the observation of A.O. to the effect that assessee has not furnished share applications made by investors nor produced any evidence to show that shares were allotted to them. When these facts were confronted to assessee, he submitted that when the confirmations have been filed from the creditors/ share applicants disclosing their identity, income- tax particulars and also admitting the fact that they have a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e facts and materials on record as well as report submitted by AO, though, acknowledged the fact that identity of the creditors have been established by furnishing PAN, addresses and assessment details, but, as far as the creditworthiness of the creditors is concerned, no evidence has been furnished by assessee. Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that when assessee had stated that Directors undertook to pay the said amount individually by themselves and advised the company to treat the money as share ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. He noted that the confirmation letters from the parties confirmed that the amounts are paid to Shri K.Laxma Reddy for the purpose of investment in the company and does not indicate that the amounts paid are share application money for the purpose of buying the shares of the company. Ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee even did not produce before A.O. personal agreements claimed to have been entered by the Directors with the parties in this regard. Thus, ld. CIT(A) by observing that onus is on as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tablished, hence, the amount of ₹ 2,95,91,391, though was not added at the time of assessment proceeding, also needs to be treated as unexplained credit and added to the income of assessee. Ld. CIT(A) following the observations in case of other creditors, also treated the amount of ₹ 2,95,91,391 as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act. Being aggrieved of the order of ld. CIT(A), assessee is before us. 11. Ld. AR strongly challenging the finding of the A.O. and ld. CIT(A) submitted before us .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

A), assessee has submitted confirmations with all the above particulars in respect of rest of the creditors. Ld. AR submitted, when assessee has disclosed identity of the creditors with assessment particulars and all other necessary details with their bank account copies and when the creditors have confirmed of having made investment in the company, it cannot be said that assessee has failed to discharge its onus of providing cash credits. Ld. AR submitted, as far as the ingredients of section 6 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ditworthiness of the creditor. Ld. AR submitted, when all the creditors have confirmed of having advanced the amount and it is reflected in their respective accounts and more over when all the creditors are income-tax assessees, no doubt can be raised with regard to their creditworthiness. Moreover, assessee having discharged the initial onus cast upon it, it cannot be expected to prove the source of source. Ld. AR submitted, if at all there is any doubt with regard to the source from which cred .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

made u/s 68 of the Act. 12. Ld. CIT/DR on the other hand, defending the order passed by him submitted, the assessee though, introduced the amount in question as share application money but he failed to prove such credit through proper documentary evidence at any stage of the proceeding. Ld. D.R. submitted, though, assessee produced confirmation letters from the creditors and also furnished their income tax particulars, but, none of the creditors admitted of having advanced the amount as share ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

garavelu vs. Addl. CIT & Others (2010) 320 ITR 1 (S.C.) submitted that income tax authorities are well within their powers to not only satisfy themselves that money is from legitimate source, but also satisfy themselves that money is going to be utilized for legitimate purpose. Thus, he finally concluded that the assessee having failed to explain the credit, addition is justified. 13. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the revenue authorities as well as other .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e accepted and accordingly treated them as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Learned CIT(A) also confirmed such addition. As can be seen from the materials available on record, before the A.O. assessee submitted confirmation letters in case of seven persons covering an amount of ₹ 2,95,91,391. In course of hearing of appeal before the first appellate authority, the assessee submitted confirmation letters containing not only the name, address of the party, but also the in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eas, the assessee it its books has shown the amount as share application money, which according to the A.O. and learned CIT(A) the assessee has failed to substantiate through documentary evidence, the credits have been treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act. It is evident from record, in course of proceeding before departmental authorities, it was explained by the assessee that the advances were actually obtained by the Director s from their known persons and on their ad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he assessee to prove such credit by establishing the identity of the creditor, the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the creditor. In the facts of the present case, it is a matter of record that the assessee has produced confirmation letters in respect of all the creditors wherein not only the identity of the creditors with their address have been furnished but income tax particulars including PAN has also been given. Therefore, the identity of the creditors remains esta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

reditworthiness of the creditors, it is to be noted that all the creditors have not only confirmed of having advanced the money to the assessee but have also stated that it is out of their own sources. It is also not disputed that all the creditors are income tax assessees in the role of the department. 13.2. As it appears from the orders of the A.O. as well as CIT(A) as well as the remand report submitted by the A.O., the primary reason for not accepting assessee s explanation is creditworthine .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rces. Even the A.O. could have taken up the issue with the concerned A.Os with whom the creditors are assessed. When all the creditors are assessees of the Income Tax Department and the entire transaction is through proper banking channel, it is not understood how the A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) could doubt the creditworthiness of the concerned creditors without bringing any positive evidence or material on record through a process of enquiry to indicate that the creditors did not have the creditworthin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, but the department has miserably failed to prove the fact that the creditors do not have the creditworthiness or the transaction is not genuine. Only because the credits have been shown as share application money in the books of accounts of the assessee, it will not automatically lead to the conclusion that the amount received is unexplained credit as the assessee has failed to establish its claim that the money advanced is towards share application money. Regardless, whether the advances were .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

anced by them towards investment in the company. Ld. CIT(A) has refused to take cognizance of the affidavit by stating that they are in the nature of additional evidence. In our view, when certain statements have been made in the affidavit which are only supporting the confirmation letters already filed, they cannot be ignored by treating them as additional evidence. The averments made in an affidavit prima facie has to be considered to be correct unless evidence is brought on record to falsify .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

communication made to the assessee to indicate that assessee was asked to produce creditors for examination. Though, Ld.D.R. stated before us that such evidence would be brought to record by way of written submission but till date neither any written submission or evidence have been filed before us by the Ld. CIT/D.R. Thus, from the aforesaid facts, a conclusion can be drawn that the assessee was never asked to produce the creditors. If the department had any doubt with regard to the genuinenes .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s between the unaccounted income of the assessee and the money advanced. Without any such enquiry, the department cannot be permitted to treat the credit as unexplained income of the assessee on mere presumption and surmises or solely relying upon the entries made in the books of account showing the credit as share application money. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the assessee having proved the credits by establishing the identity of the creditors, genuineness of the transaction and c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tal authorities and allow the ground of the assessee. 14. In ground No.3 of the revised ground, the assessee has challenged the addition made of ₹ 6,51,93,703 as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act. 15. Briefly the facts are during the assessment proceedings, the A.O. while verifying the accounts of the assessee noticed that assessee has shown an amount of ₹ 12,41,93,703 as trade credits in the name of 11 persons. When called upon to explain the source of such credits, it .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rom two parties for an amount of ₹ 5,90,00,000. However, as far as other credits are concerned, as observed by the A.O., the assessee could not even submit confirmation letters. Keeping this fact in view, the A.O. while accepting the credits of ₹ 5,90,00,000, treated the balance amount of ₹ 6,51,93,703 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added it to the income of the assessee. Being aggrieved of such addition, assessee preferred appeal before the first ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dentity of the creditors, but, he has failed to establish the creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction. Learned CIT(A) after considering the report of the A.O. confirmed the addition by observing that assessee has failed to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction. 17. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the orders of the authorities and other materials available on record. The Learned Counsel for both th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rties. On perusal of assessment order, it is very much clear that the A.O. has disallowed the amount of ₹ 6,23,24,518 only for the reason that the assessee has failed to submit confirmation letters from the concerned creditors, whereas, he accepted the credits in respect of which, the assessee could submit confirmation letters. On going through the confirmation letters, it is very much evident that not only the creditors have confirmed of giving advance to the assessee, but it is also evid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

creditors by furnishing their postal address as well as PAN with income tax particulars. It is also not disputed that the advances were received through proper banking channel, hence, genuineness of the transaction also cannot be doubted. Therefore, if the A.O. had any doubt with regard to the creditworthiness, he should have made proper enquiry with the concerned person to find out whether they had the capability to advance the amount to the assessee. The material on record demonstrate that A.O .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s.13 to 13.3 in case of share application money, which also equally applies to the trade creditors, we delete the addition of ₹ 6,23,24,518. However, in respect of three creditors viz., Palomi Estates, Zisanuddin and others for a total amount of ₹ 28,69,185, it is a fact on record that assessee has neither furnished any confirmation letters nor any other evidence to establish the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, in absen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the year assessee has made the following investments out of the borrowed funds : Sl.No. Name Amount 2. KLR Mining Equipments Ltd., 1,32,86,987 3. SBI One India Fund 1,00,000 4. Palaka Estate 8,22,250 5. Dubai Investment 2,21,00,000 Total 3,63,09,237 19.1. When the A.O. called upon the assessee to explain why proportionate amount out of the interest expenditure shall not be disallowed, as investments made with sister concerns/related parties were not for business purpose, it was submitted by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ubai but the same is going to be a separate entity taxable under the tax laws of UAE. Therefore, for acquiring industrial facility in Dubai, which is going to be a separate entity, cannot be treated as funds utilized for the purpose of assessee s business. 19.2. As far as investment in KLR Mining Equipment is concerned, it was submitted by the assessee that the amount was advanced to clear/pay off the liability of the concerned party to bank and to pay for the personnel employed by it. It was ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e observed that when interest bearing funds of assessee were utilized to meet liabilities of another company, it cannot be for the purpose of assessee s business. As far as investments in Palaka Estate and SBI-ONE India Fund is concerned, the A.O. observed that the assessee did not offer any explanation regarding the nature of investment. The A.O. therefore, referring to the provisions of section 36(iii) of the Act held that since the assessee has utilized borrowed fund to the extent of ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

be treated as funds utilized for business and accordingly worked out proportionate disallowance from interest expenditure at ₹ 12,12,000. Therefore, the total disallowance made by the A.O. was to the tune of ₹ 55,69,108. Being aggrieved of such disallowance, assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. However, learned CIT(A) also confirmed the addition made by the A.O. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 20. The learned A.R. submitted before us that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sheds. The premises of the concern are within the same compound as that of the assessee. It was submitted that since the company is not in production, it has allowed the assessee to utilize its land, sheds and plant and machinery. The assessee also stood guarantee for some loans taken by the said company from bank. Therefore, if KLR Mining and Equipments Ltd., fails to meet its payment schedules, its assets will be put to auction by the Bank which will have serious repercussion on the business .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ncerned, it is submitted by the learned A.R. that the investments are out of own account and has no nexus with the borrowed fund. As far as advances made to Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Mrs. Rashmi Reddy is concerned, learned A.R. submitted the investment was for purchase of land and out of own account (surplus fund). The learned A.R. submitted that the A.O. has not disallowed any interest on similar investment/advances made in assessment year 2008-2009. In support of its contention, the learned A.R. re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tilized. In our view, the aforesaid facts require verification since if there is no nexus between the investment made and the borrowed fund, then, no disallowance can be made. As these aspects are not examined by either A.O. or learned CIT(A), we are inclined to remit the matter back to the file of A.O. to verify and take a decision in the matter, after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 23. The next issue as raised in Ground No.5 of the revised ground as well as Ground Nos.6 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nks 3,78,909 - 3. Ramireddy (Int. on loan) 12,00,000 TDS not deducted 4. Prem Raj (Int. on loan) 75,000 TDS not deducted Total 25,46,846 25. The A.O. was of the view that provisions of section 194A is applicable to such payments. Since the assessee has not deducted tax at source while making the payment, the A.O. disallowed an amount of ₹ 21,67,937. However, the assessee out of the total disallowance made challenged the disallowance of ₹ 8,92,937 only before the learned CIT(A). Befor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

37 has also challenged the disallowance of ₹ 3,78,909 being interest paid to banks ₹ 12 lakhs being interest paid to Mr. Rami Reddy and ₹ 75,000 to Mr. Premraj by raising additional ground. The learned A.R. submitted before us that as far as the amount paid to M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited towards vehicle loans is concerned, it is EMI paid under hire purchase agreement, hence, provisions of section 194A will not be applicable. He also submitted that provisions of section 194A w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The primary contention of the assessee is, since the entire interest amount is paid during the relevant previous year and nothing remained payable, no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) can be made. We find merit in the aforesaid submissions of the assessee. As held by the ITAT, Vizag Special Bench in the case of Merylin Shipping and Transport (supra), no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) can be made if the entire amount w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3,58,187 as bad and doubtful debts written off. 30. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. As could be seen the A.O. while completing the assessment, has disallowed assessee s claim of bad and doubtful debts by observing that the assessee has failed to prove that the debt has become irrecoverable. However, on going through the provision of section 36(1)(vii) read with sub-section (2), it is very much clear that the only condition .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r increase of share capital amounting to ₹ 3,01,452. 32. During the assessment proceeding, the A.O. noticed that the assessee has debited to the P & L account an amount of ₹ 3,01,452 as fees paid to the ROC for increasing the authorized capital. The A.O. being of the view that expenditure incurred is in the nature of capital expenditure is not allowable. Accordingly, he disallowed the same. Assessee did not challenged the disallowance before the Ld. CIT(A) but has chosen to chall .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version