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 →

I.T.O., Ward-56 (1) , Kolkata Versus M/s. Transport Development Corporation, Kolkata

Truck running expenses disallowed - Held that:- We find that the truck running expenses claimed in this AY is commensurate with the turn-over of the assessee compared to A.Y.2010-11 and 2011- 12. The truck running expenses from A.Y.2007-08 to 2011-12 shows the increasing trend. This increase in the percentage of the expenses to the turn-over is understandable and commensurate with the rate of inflation. No adverse inference ought to have been therefore drawn against the assessee. We therefore ar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

evenue is not acceptable because the nature of this fee is wages and not any retainer fee paid in the process of transportation. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) in allowing the claim does not call for any interference. - Tansportation charges disallowed - Held that:- Before us the contention of the revenue is that the truck running expenses and transportation charges are one and the same. We are of the view that in the light of the evidence brought 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

Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCIT, Sr.DR For the Assessee : Shri S.Jhajharia, FCA ORDER Per N. V. Vasudevan, JM ITA No.580/Kol/2013 is an appeal by the Revenue directed against the order dated 04.01.2013 of CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata, relating to AY 2009-10. The Assessee has filed Cross-objection being CO No.55/Kol/2013 against the very same order of the CIT(A). ITA No.580/Kol/2013 (Revenue s appeal) 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the revenue read as follows :- 1. That the Ld.C.I.T.(A)-XXXVI,Kolkata erred i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ata erred in allowing Retainership Fees of ₹ 6,49,275/- as this expenditure of the assessee not relatable to the business of the assessee since assessee having transport business with its own vehicles not require to pay any amount towards retainership. 4. That the Ld.C.I.T.(A)-XXXVI,Kolkata erred in allowing Transportation Charges of ₹ 14,49,755/- as this head of expenditure are made in the name of same party on the same day and also Transport Charges and Truck Running Expenses of Le .....

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 the assessee at ₹ 1,45,58,900/-. Most of the additions made by AO were deleted by CIT(A) giving rise to this appeal by the revenue before the Tribunal. 4. As far as ground no.1 raised by the revenue is concerned the facts are that the assessee claimed a sum of ₹ 1,01,82,908/- as truck running expenses. The same was claimed as deduction while computing income from transportation business. In the body of the order of assessment, the AO wanted to disallow 10% of the truck running ex .....

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 in respect of vehicles owned by the assessee which were 28 in number. The assessee pointed out that no expenses in respect of hiring vehicles were included in the truck running expenses. The assessee pointed out that out of total expenses booked under the head truck running expenses, expenses on fuel constituted about 85% to 90% and the remaining sum was wages paid to the drivers and kalasis and truck repairing expenses and other miscellaneous incidental expenses. It was submitted that these .....

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 assessee is given as Annexure to this order. 7. After considering the rival submissions and on a consideration of the comparative chart, we find that the truck running expenses claimed in this AY is commensurate with the turn-over of the assessee compared to A.Y.2010-11 and 2011- 12. The truck running expenses from A.Y.2007-08 to 2011-12 shows the increasing trend. This increase in the percentage of the expenses to the turn-over is understandable and commensurate with the rate of inflation. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. As per the terms of the agreement, the assessee was to employ workmen and staff for maintaining the safety and security of the godown, storing, keeping and handing of the goods in safe condition in the godown and keeping proper accounts loading and unloading of the goods to and from the godown to different dealers. For performing the aforesaid job the assessee incurred expenses to the tune of ₹ 7,42,641/-. These expenses were booked under the head Godown Expenses . The AO was of the view .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

enses and related to the business of the Assessee. The CIT(A) therefore found the explanation of the Assessee to be acceptable and accordingly deleted the addition made by AO. 10. Considering the material available on record and agreement between the Assessee and M/S.Philips India Ltd., we are of the view that the expenditure in question was for the business of the Assessee and the order of CIT(A) on this issue does not call for any interference. Accordingly ground no.2 raised by the revenue is .....

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 loading and unloading of goods at various places. These were in the nature of wages and are not paid to persons who are in the regular pay roll of the assessee. This was the reason why the nomenclature retainership fees was used while accounting for the aforesaid payment. The real nature of the payment was in the nature of wages and had to be allowed as deduction. The CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee and allowed the claim of the assessee. 13. The contention of the revenue befo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rges of ₹ 14,49,755/- had been made to the same party on the same day. He was of the view that these expenses were pertaining to truck running expenses and ought to have been included therein. The AO accordingly added the aforesaid sum to the total income of the assessee. 15. Before CIT(A) the assessee pointed out that apart from its own truck the assessee had also engaged other parties for hiring trucks for its business. The assessee pointed out that the truck running expenses incurred 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

We are of the view that in the light of the evidence brought before CIT(A), the contention of the revenue cannot be accepted. Accordingly ground no.4 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 17. As far as ground no.5 raised by the revenue is concerned, the AO noticed that there was an increase in the loan amount in the balance sheet of the assessee by a sum of ₹ 8,54,000/-. Since the assessee had not filed any evidence to show the receipt of loan AO treated the aforesaid sum as unexplained and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

were exactly same without any change. The only loan alc. was with the sister concern M/s TDC Warehousing Corporation and it was interest free. The loan transactions with the sister concern were all by cheque and the same were duly accounted for in the assessee's books. Hence, addition made of ₹ 8,54,000/- u/s. 69 is therefore deleted. 19. The contention of the revenue before us is that the Assessee did not produce the loan documents to substantiate receipt of loan. We are of the view .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

trary disallowance of ₹ 2,88,549/- made by the AO in the assessment framed u/s 143(3)/144 of the Act, dated 28.12.2011, out of rates and taxes. 22. As far as the grounds raised by the assessee is concerned, the facts are that the AO found that the assessee had claimed as deduction a sum of ₹ 2,88,549/- under the head rates and taxes which sum was debited in the profit and loss account. This addition was made on the premise that there was no actual payment of rates and taxes and there .....

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