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 →

M/s. Silicon Interfaces Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Cir. 10 (1) Mumbai

2016 (7) TMI 695 - ITAT MUMBAI

Disallowance on account of excess provisions written back - Held that:- We find that the FAA had upheld the disallowance, made by the AO, that he had held that the assessee had not filed the returns of income, P&L A/c. s for the earlier years. Considering the fact that these basic documents were available to AO as well as FAA, we are of the opinion that before taking an adverse view they should have verified the facts from the available records or should have directed the assessee to file the sa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of PF - Held that:- We find that in the case of Ghatge Patil Transports (2014 (10) TMI 402 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ), the Court had held that if the payments were made before the due date of filing of return of income, no disallowance can be made as per the provisions of section 36(1). Respectfully, following the above judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, we decide Ground in favour of the assessee. - Disallowance of travelling and conveyance expenditure - Held that:- We find that 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

mber And C. N. Prasad, Judicial Member For the Revenue : Shri J. Saravanan-DR For the Assessee : Shri Dharmesh Shah ORDER Per Rajendra, AM Challenging the order, dated 24. 08. 2011, of the CIT(A)-21, Mumbai, the Assessee has filed the present appeal. First two grounds of appeal were not pressed by the Authorised Representative (AR)during the course of hearing before us. Hence, both the(Gr. No. 1&2)grounds stand dismissed, as not pressed. 2. Assessee-company, engaged in the business consultan .....

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 the assessment proceedings it was found by the AO that the assessee had credited an amount of ₹ 9, 72, 920/- to its P&L Account on account of excess provision written back, that the assessee had claimed that the said amount was on account of provisional liability and not actually ascertained liability, that same was to be reduced while calculating the taxable income, that the unascertained liability could not be assessed to tax, that in the earlier years it had debited the P&L .....

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 the First Appellate Authority (FAA). He referred to the audit report filed by the assessee. After considering the submission of the assessee and assessment order, the FAA held that the assessee had not filed any documentary evidence namely balance sheet, P&L A/c. , returns of income for the earlier years to justify the claim, that the assessee had not satisfactorily proved that the deduction of the liabilities were not claimed in the earlier years. Finally, he upheld the order of the AO. 3 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not filed the returns of income, P&L A/c. s for the earlier years. Considering the fact that these basic documents were available to AO as well as FAA, we are of the opinion that before taking an adverse view they should have verified the facts from the available records or should have directed the assessee to file the same. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the issue needs further verification. So, in the interest of justice we are res .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to PF and ESIC was not made within the stipulated date as provided in section 36(1) of the Act. Provident Fund Months Employees Contribution Due Date Date of Payment July, 07 35714 20. 08. 2007 23. 08. 2007 October, 07 302208 20. 11. 2007 22. 11. 2007 ESIC July, 07 3216 21. 08. 2007 23. 08. 2007 October, 07 1844 21. 11. 2007 22. 11. 2007 The above amount was considered by AO as assessee s income as per the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r. w. s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4. 1. During the appellate .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ts (368ITR749) and Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (366ITR1) of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The DR left the issue to the discretion of the Bench. We find that in the case of Ghatge Patil Transports(supra), the Court had held that if the payments were made before the due date of filing of return of income, no disallowance can be made as per the provisions of section 36(1). Respectfully, following the above judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, we decide Ground No. 4 in f .....

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, vouchers, nature of foreign travel etc. Therefore, in absence of the details he disallowed 1/4th of the expenses i. e. ₹ 6. 96 lakhs. 5. 1. During the appellate proceedings the assessee contended that the expenditure was incurred towards travelling of employees and the management abroad, for business purposes, that all the details called for by the AO were submitted vide letter 8. 1. 2010, 7. 5. 2010 and 16. 08. 2010. Before the AO, the assessee filed ledger account of the expenses just .....

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