TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial year in the balance sheet and in case he finds that no amount is payable on the last day of the financial year, he would delete the disallowance. Addition on trading advances - Held that:- We find that the advances are in the nature of trade advances. The AO has already rejected the books of account and made the addition on account of suppressed sales. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of G.K. Contractor [2009 (1) TMI 840 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] has held that when estimated profit is considered after rejecting assessee’s books of accounts by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act, no separate addition can be made even u/s 68 of the Act, even though the assessee has failed to discharge the onus of proof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing a sum of ₹ 1,840/- of sales tax demand. The action of the ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the said disallowance of ₹ 1,840/-. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in disallowing a sum of ₹ 4,36,455/- of interest paid to following NBFCs u/s 40(a)(ia) of IT Act, 1961 :- S.No. Name of Parties Amount (in Rs. 1. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. 54,347/- 2. Cholamandalam DBS 69,170/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stimating the sales at ₹ 1,56,09,536/- against the declared sales of ₹ 1,32,70,453/- for the alleged reason of unrecorded sales. The action of the ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the rejection of books of account and deleting the trading addition of ₹ 23,39,083/- by accepting the book results as declared by assessee. (b) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in not considering the submissions made during the course of assessment proceedings. The action of the ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nance companies. 4.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the authorities below were not justified in making the disallowance in respect of the interest expenditure of ₹ 4,36,455/- by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. He submitted that the entire expenditures were paid during the year under appeal. No amount was outstanding on the last date of financial year. He relied on the decisions rendered in the case of Merilyn Shipping Transports vs. ACIT (2012) 16 ITR (Trib.) 1 (Vishakhapatnam)(SB), CIT vs. Vector Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 5219/Del/2012. The ld. Counsel submitted that this view has been followed by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Jaipur. The ld. Counsel submitted that wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd (supra). The fact whether the amount was outstanding requires verification at the end of the AO hence the order of the ld. CIT (A) is set aside. The issue is restored to the file of the AO to verify whether any amount is payable on the last date of financial year in the balance sheet and in case he finds that no amount is payable on the last day of the financial year, he would delete the disallowance. 5. Ground no. 3 is against disallowance of ₹ 3,50,800/-. 5.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that these are trading advances. The AO has made the addition on account of unexplained cash credit. The ld. Counsel submitted that there is no evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the authorities below were not justified in making the addition. He submitted that the law is well settled that the better indicator of book result is the past history. The authorities below have not taken into consideration the past history of the assessee while making the addition of ₹ 23,39,083/- which in fact resulted into gross profit at 32.42% which is 7 to 8% higher than the previous years. The ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions as made in the written brief. 6.2. On the contrary, the ld. D/R supported the orders of the authorities below. 6.3. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material on record. The assessee has not challenged rejection of b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
