Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (9) TMI 1108 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

2015 (9) TMI 1108 - ITAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Addition u/s. 41(1) as cessation of liability - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- CIT (A) while deleting the addition has noted that the issue in the present case was covered by the decision of Shri Govindbhai C. Patel vs. DCIT [2009 (10) TMI 637 - ITAT AHMEDABAD]. Before us the Revenue has not brought any contrary binding decision in its support nor could point out any fallacy in the order of CIT (A). We therefore find no reason to interfere wi .....

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 by the assessee. Before us, Revenue has not brought any material on record to controvert the findings of the CIT (A). In view of the aforesaid, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT (A) - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 2411/Ahd/2010 - Dated:- 25-6-2015 - Anil Chaturvedi, AM And S. S. Godara, JM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri V K Singh, Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri S N Divatia, AR ORDER Per Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the Revenue agains .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t vide order dated 24-12-2009 and the total income was determined at ₹ 1,45,90,590/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O., assessee carried the matter before CIT (A) who vide order dated 18-5-2010 granted substantial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of CIT (A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal. "(1) The Ld. CIT (A)-XV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 15,04,001/- made by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t Aswamegh Medows Booking. The assessee was asked to give the details of the same and also to explain as to how the balances were outstanding from a scheme that was cancelled long back. In response to which the assessee filed the names of the persons but did not furnish the address of the parties, confirmations etc. The A.O. noted that it was 15 years since the money was payable and since the parties were not insisting for payment and the assessee also had not made any payment, the liability has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

23-11-2009. Copy of this letter with its enclosures was submitted. The relevant enclosure showing the names and addresses is enclosed as Annexure-1 of this order. It was argued by the AR that ₹ 15,04,001 was not claimed as deduction or expense in the return of any earlier year and for making addition u/s. 41(1) that was mandatory. Hon'ble ITAT Bench B Ahmedabad decision dated 30-10-2009 in the case of Govindbai C. Patel vs. DCIT in ITA No.1675/Ahd/2009 was cited in support wherein 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

uction in any earlier year. 8. After going through rival submissions the AO is directed to delete the addition of ₹ 15,04,001 made u/s. 41(1) because the issue is covered by Hon'ble ITAT Bench B Ahmedabad decision in the case of Govindbhai C. Patel mentioned in the preceding paragraph. However, the addition of ₹ 1,00,000/- is upheld as it was confirmed during the appellate proceedings by the Ld. AR that deduction of this amount on account of purchase of escalators had been taken .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rocessors Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 22 Taxmann.com 120 (Guj) and the decision in the case of CIT vs. Nitin S. Garg (2012) 22 Taxmann.com 59 (Guj.) and thus supported the order of the CIT (A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to addition u/s. 41(1) of the Act. We find that the CIT (A) while deleting the addition has noted that the issue in the present case was covered by the decision of Ahmedabad Bench Tri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ce sheet noticed that the unsecured loan received by the assessee was diverted for the personal use of the partners by allowing them to withdraw the capital from the firm. He also noticed that assessee has incurred interest charges of ₹ 15,64,570/- as against which the interest that was charged to partners worked out to 2.4% as against 9% to 24% paid by the assessee on some of the loans taken by it. He was of the view that had the funds been deposited with bank the assessee could have earn .....

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 I find that the conclusion drawn by the A.O. is not supported by facts The AO has not given any account of interest bearing and non-interest bearing funds, he has taken total of deposits, loans from sister concerns and other loans figure totaling to ₹ 7,59,36,553 as loan amount, without mentioning fresh loan acquired during the year or rate of interest on a particular loan. In this background the argument of the A.R. that out of this non-interest bearing funds were available of ₹ 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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