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

2015 (11) TMI 291 - ITAT KOLKATA

2015 (11) TMI 291 - ITAT KOLKATA - TMI - Addition made towards unaccounted receipt - assessee claimed TDS - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The payment for the same had been received by the assessee after TDS in April 2006. We find that the assessee has duly accounted for this receipt in its profit and loss account in consonance with the mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by it. We also hold that the assessee had not claimed the TDS on the subject mentioned receipt in 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 said paper book also contained the details of payments made to those suppliers for purchases made by the assessee by account payee cheques. We have perused the entire paper book filed by the assessee in this regard. We also observe that the Learned CIT(A) had called for a remand report from the Learned AO with regard to the production of these documents and the Learned AO did not offer any comments on the same. We also find that the suppliers have been produced before the Learned AO under s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aganesh This appeal of the revenue arises out of the order of the Learned CIT(A) in Appeal No.562/XII/10(4)/10-11 dated 20-12-2011 for the Asst Year 2006-07 passed against the order of assessment framed by the Learned AO u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. Shri.Sanjay Mukherjee, JCIT, the Learned DR argued on behalf of the revenue and Shri.Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, the Learned AR argued on behalf of the assessee. 3. The first issue to be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd claimed the TDS. The said contract receipt of ₹ 21,44,400/- was duly subjected to deduction of tax at source by M/s Arvind Construction Co Pvt Ltd. The Learned AO formed an opinion that the assessee had claimed TDS on the subject mentioned receipt in Asst Year 2006-07 and accordingly brought to tax the corresponding receipt of ₹ 21,44,400/- as income in Asst Year 2006-07 as against the income offered in Asst Year 2007-08 by the assessee. On first appeal, the Learned CIT(A) deleted .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rcantile system of accounting. 3.2. The Learned DR vehemently supported the order of the Learned AO. In response to this, the Learned AR referred to various relevant pages of the paper book filed by him. The Learned AR argued that the assessee had raised a bill only on 3.4.2006 on M/s Arvind Construction Co. Pvt Ltd and the said party had also received the invoice of the assessee only in April 2006 and the payment has been made by the party to the assessee only in April 2006 after duly subjectin .....

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 that the assessee had duly offered the subject mentioned receipt of ₹ 21,44,400/- and claimed TDS thereon only in Asst Year 2007-08. 3.3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find from the paper book containing pages 1-41 filed by the Learned AR that M/s Arvind Construction Co. Pvt Ltd had duly received in April 2006 the invoice dated 3.4.2006 raised by the assessee. We also find that the payment for the same had been received 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

d. Accordingly, the grounds 1 & 2 raised by the revenue are dismissed. 4. The last issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made towards bogus purchase of sulphur amounting to ₹ 1,57,38,279/- and cement amounting to ₹ 32,05,795/-. 4.1. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee had made purchases of E.Sulphur from Mahanagar Udyog and other parties for ₹ 1,57,38,279/- and purchase of cement from Syam .....

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