Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Dy. C.I.T., Sitapur Versus Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill Ltd., Sitapur

2015 (7) TMI 844 - ITAT LUCKNOW

Addition on account of press mud - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- This issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision in assessee’s own case [2014 (4) TMI 1074 - ITAT LUCKNOW] and for assessment year 2008-09. We decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A) - Decided against revenue

Addition on interest payable on loan from Sugar Development Fund - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- This amount of addition was worked out by the Assessing Officer on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

st of ₹ 51,30,697/- was added resulting into total of ₹ 3,97,48,173/- and against this, there are two payments totaling ₹ 15,64,945/- and after deducting this payment, the net balance has been shown at ₹ 3,81,83,228/-. When the assessee has suo motu added the entire amount of the present year accrual of ₹ 51,30,697/-, no further addition is called for on account of such unpaid interest on secured loans and therefore, the same was rightly deleted by CIT(A) - Decided .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed an amount of ₹ 17500000.00 from U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. Lucknow and repaid ₹ 9080000.00 and U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. is regular assessee with JCIT-II Lucknow having PAN-AAAAU 0391D and thus the genuineness of loan cannot be doubted. When this is the admitted position that the assessee has not given any reply to the Assessing Officer regarding genuineness of this liability, CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition without ob .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is submitted by the assessee before the Assessing Officer that there was opening balance of ₹ 105.88 lac on 01/04/2005 and the amount taken was ₹ 9.46 lac against which allotment of shares was made of ₹ 7.35 lac in the present year and now it has been shown to us that there was further allotment of shares of ₹ 3.75 lac in next year. Hence, if we consider the allotment of shares in the present year and next year, we find that total is more than amount taken in the present .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee by following a judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. [2005 (3) TMI 82 - ALLAHABAD High Court] and also Siddheshwar Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs. CIT [2004 (9) TMI 6 - SUPREME Court]. No difference in facts could be pointed out by Learned D.R. of the Revenue and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the present year.- Decided against revenue

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

CIT(A), we find that no deduction was made in the present year. We also find that the copy of ledger account is available on page No. 62 of the paper book and as per the same, there is opening balance of ₹ 390062.46 and the same amount is the closing balance and therefore, there is no deduction from cane growers in the present year. In view of this fact that there is no deduction in the present year, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not justified and therefore, we hold 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

come of the present year. We decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee.

Addition on account of eye relief - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- We find that this amount was also added by the Assessing Officer by making this observation that this amount of ₹ 6,85,397.79 has not been deposited till the filing of return of income and this is self-generated liability. Copy of ledger account is available on page No. 65 of the paper book and fr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ned CIT(A), Bareilly dated 03/12/2013 for the assessment year 2006- 2007. 2. Ground No. 1 is as under: 1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ) is not justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 22,725/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of press mud and the CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts and circumstances as mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. 3. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ase, similar issue was decided by the Tribunal against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by following the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for assessment year 2008-09 in I.T.A. No.409/Lkw/2013 dated 29/11/2013. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts as compared to the facts in assessment year 2005-06 and 2008-09 wherein the Tribunal decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view. According .....

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 supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that computation of income submitted by the assessee along with the return of income is available on pages 11 & 12 and on page No. 9 of the paper book is ledger copy of account of interest accrued and due but not paid on secured loan. He pointed out that in computation of income, the entire amount of accrued interest for present year of ₹ 51,30,697/- has been added back and therefore, no further addition is called for. 7. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

see also in its computation of income. To this extent, there is no dispute but the Assessing Officer has also made addition of ₹ 35,65,752/- on account of accrued interest. This amount of addition was worked out by the Assessing Officer on the basis that as per Schedule-C of accrued interest, ₹ 3,81,83,228/- has been shown payable as against 3,46,17,476/- shown in the immediately preceding year and on this basis, the Assessing Officer has come to the conclusion that there is accrued .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

essee has suo motu added the entire amount of the present year accrual of ₹ 51,30,697/-, no further addition is called for on account of such unpaid interest on secured loans and therefore, the same was rightly deleted by CIT(A) and hence, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. This ground is rejected. 8. Ground No. 3 is as under: 3. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 84,20,000/- rightly made by the Asse .....

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) by making following observations on page 5 of his order, which are reproduced below for the sake of ready reference:- Decision and reasons therefor I have carefully considered the issue, perused the assessment order and gone through the detailed written submissions. The assessee has received ₹ 17500000.00 for cane price payment from U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. Lucknow and repaid ₹ 9080000.00 against the same. The U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd .....

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 Assessing Officer has also noted that the assessee has complied with other requirements but has said nothing on this account. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has noted that on going through the details, it is noticed that the liability in this head as on 31/03/2005 was ₹ 50 lac and after reducing the same liability generated during the year was worked out at ₹ 84,20,000/-. The Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 84.20 lac being incremental liability of the present year. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hen this is the admitted position that the assessee has not given any reply to the Assessing Officer regarding genuineness of this liability, CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition without obtaining remand report from the Assessing Officer on this aspect and since this was not done by learned CIT(A), we are of the opinion that his order is not sustainable but at the same time, we feel that in the interest of justice, the matter should go to learned CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh af .....

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 on account of deduction of Share Money from Producer, Members and the CIT(A) has not considered the facts and circumstances as mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. 13. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that the reply given by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as per letter dated 05/09/2008 is available on pages 66 to 69 of the paper book. He al .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ger account of succeeding year available on pages 95 and 96 of the paper book, the opening balance is the same as closing balance in the present year and there is transfer of fully paid shares of ₹ 3.75 lac on 31/03/2007 leaving a closing balance of ₹ 1,12,10,311.28. Hence, it is seen that there was allotment of shares of ₹ 3.75 lac in the next year and there is allotment of shares of ₹ 7,34,700/- in the present year. In the light of these facts, we examine the finding 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

#8377; 3.75 lac in next year. Hence, if we consider the allotment of shares in the present year and next year, we find that total is more than amount taken in the present year. This is the policy of the assessee that allotment is made when the amount of a grower comes to ₹ 100/- and every year some allotments are made. Considering all these facts, we feel that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not justified and therefore, we decline to interfere in the order of learned CIT(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

d CIT(A). He also submitted that similar issue was involved in assessee s own case for assessment year 2005-06 in I.T.A. No.303/Lkw/2013 dated 24/04/2014. He submitted that the Tribunal order is available on pages 76 to 84 of the paper book and the relevant paras are Para No. 29 to 31. 17. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in assessment year 2005-06, this issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee by following a judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n the order of learned CIT(A). Ground No. 5 is rejected. 18. Ground No. 6 is as under: 6. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ) is not justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 13,41,800/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of payment of subscription to Federation under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act and the CIT (A) has not considered the facts and circumstances as mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. 19. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported t .....

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 Tribunal order. 20. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in the case cited by Learned A.R. of the assessee, the Tribunal has considered this issue as to whether the activities of services rendered by federation is professional or technical services and therefore, TDS was required to be made u/s 194J of the Act. The Tribunal has decided this issue in favour of the assessee and it was held that the services rendered by federation does not come within the definition of any servi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

IT(A) has not considered the facts and circumstances as mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. 22. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 23. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue was decided by CIT(A) after making following observations on page No. 10 & 11 of his order, which are reproduced below for the sake of ready reference:- Decision and rea .....

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 has deducted full price of the cane in the trading account but less price is paid to cane society meaning thereby excess expenditure to the tune of ₹ 390062.46" On the other hand the AR for the appellant claimed that no deduction from the cane price payment has been made and vide reply dated 05/09/2008 the copy of account of deduction on account of school fund has been submitted during the course of hearing vide order reply dated 05/09/2008. The appellant s AR also filed 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

the same amount is the closing balance and therefore, there is no deduction from cane growers in the present year. In view of this fact that there is no deduction in the present year, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not justified and therefore, we hold that the same was rightly deleted by learned CIT(A). This ground is rejected. 24. Ground No. 8 is as under: 8. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ) is not justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 8,68,560/- made 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

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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