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

2016 (7) TMI 523 - ITAT MUMBAI

2016 (7) TMI 523 - ITAT MUMBAI - TMI - Interest levied u/s. 234 B and 234C - Held that:- Interest u/s. 234B and 234C cannot be levied when tax was to be computed u/s. 115JB of the Act. See Kwality Biscuits Ltd. (2006 (4) TMI 121 - SUPREME Court ) and Rolta India Ltd [ 2011 (1) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] - Disallwoance u/s 36(1)(viii) - assessee had written off an amount as provision for bad debts - Held that:- We find that the AO and the FAA had lost sight of the basic fact that it was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dered for arriving at the final conclusion. Therefore, in the interest of justice we are restoring the matter back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication who will decide the issue after considering the submissions of the assessee - Addition towards software expenses treated as short term capital loss - Held that:- We find that AO did not have the benefit of the claim made before the FAA as well as details of P&L account groupings. To meet the ends of justice, we are restoring the issue to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pening balances of the creditors while filing the explanation before him. Therefore, in the interest of justice we are restoring back the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as stated earlier. He is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. He is also directed to verify the claim made by the assessee - Set off of brought forward losses/unabsorbed depreciation - denial of claim on the ground that the business for which the loss was originally computed had 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

the issue in favour of the assessee. - I. T. A. /3367/Mum/2009, I. T. A. 3532/Mum/2009 - Dated:- 8-7-2016 - Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member & Rajendra, Accountant Member For the Revenue : Shri M. Dayasagar-CIT-DR For the Assessee : Shri Vallabh Gokhale-AR ORDER Per Rajendra, AM Challenging the order dt. 17. 03. 2009 of CIT(A)-VIIII, Mumbai, the Assessee and the Assessing Officer(AO)have filed cross appeals. Assessee-company, engaged in the business of trading, marketing and export of bu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sts under the said sections of the Act. 2. 1. During the appellate proceeding the First Appellate Authority (FAA)held that interest u/s. 234B and 234C cannot be levied when tax was to be computed u/s. 115JB of the Act. He referred to the case of Kwality Biscuits Ltd. (284 ITR 434) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court . During the course of hearing, the Departmental Representative (DR) left the issue to the discretion of the Bench. The Authorised Representative (AR) relied upon the case of Kwality Bi .....

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 the assessee to furnish the details and allowability of its claims. Referring to the provisions of section 36(1)(viii) of the Act and after considering the submissions of the assessee, the AO disallowed the amount in question. 3. 1. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the FAA. Before him, it was argued that the disputed amount was towards provisions of bad debts written back and not towards bad debts written off. After considering the submission of the 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

he upheld the order of the AO. 3. 2. Before us, the AR stated that the amount in question represented the provisions for writing back of bad debts and not writing off of bad debts, that the deduction was claimed in computation of income, that the amount written back was included under miscellaneous expenses and was debited to P&L account. The DR stated that matter could be decided on merits. 3. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the AO an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al of the case record, the AO noticed that the assessee company has debited an amount of ₹ 1, 54, 77, 795/- as Foreign Exchange(FE)Gain/Loss. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the details of the same and the reason for the allowability of the same. In response, the assessee company submitted the following details:- Details of Exchange Gain/Loss Sl. No. Account No. Total 1. 9377301 6504345 2. 9377401 317231 3. 9377801 7789228 4. 9377901 866992 The AO further asked the assessee to furnish .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

&L A/c. was due to difference of exchange rate at the time of issuing invoice and actual remittance received, that the FE loss was not on account of short recovery of export proceeds as held by the AO, that the AO had erroneously treated it as bad debts. After considering the submission of the assessee and the assessment order the FAA held that the AO had asked the assessee to submit details of FE loss, that no details were filed, that the assessee had submitted written reply during appellat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1) of the Act. The DR supported the order of the FAA. 4. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the issue needs further verification as the paper referred to by the AR have to be considered for arriving at the final conclusion. Therefore, in the interest of justice we are restoring the matter back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication who will decide the issue after considering the submissions of the assessee. Ground No. 2 is decided in favour .....

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 of section 22 of the Act. As per the AO the assessee did not file any evidence to support its claim. Therefore, he added ₹ 9. 50 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. 5. 1. Before the FAA the assessee argued that incurred an amount of ₹ 9. 50 lakhs towards computer software expenses, that the amount did not represent loss on sale of assets as inadvertently submitted during the course of assessment proceedings, that the loss on sale of assets amounting to ₹ 65, 817/- had .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ny reasonable cause for not filing said evidence before the AO. He, finally, endorsed the view of the AO. 5. 2. During the course of hearing before us, the AR admitted that certain details were filed before the FAA for the first time especially, that the nomenclature of the expenditure was never verified by the AO, that he had no objection if the matter was restored to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. DR left the issue to the discretion of the Bench. 5. 3. We have heard the rival submissio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

stion represented creditors. He asked the assessee to furnish the reasons to show cause as to why the sundry creditors(general account- sales tax-46. 64 lakhs + provision for excise on gum assets-1. 38 crores+ customers stockists provision account -22. 18 lakhs) should not be considered as unexplained creditors. As per the AO the assessee did not file any details in that regard. The AO made a disallowance of ₹ 2, 08, 77, 139/- . 6. 1. Before the FAA, the assessee contended that the AO had .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under appeal, that provision for excise on gum assets was not created during the year under consideration, that the customer stockist provision account represented the amounts to be paid back to stockists, that it was a normal incident of the business and was a regular feature at every year end. The FAA held that the assessee had not produced any evidence before the AO, that he was justified in making the addition. 6. 2. Before us, the AR stated that the AO had directed the assessee to file 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

O. As per the settled principles of taxation jurisprudence opening balances of a particular year cannot be added u/s. 68 of the Act. The pages referred by the AR clearly show that the AO had ignored the vital facts that assessee had shown opening balances of the creditors while filing the explanation before him. Therefore, in the interest of justice we are restoring back the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as stated earlier. He is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity to .....

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