Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (2) TMI 39

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... avour of assessee Disallowance on account of custom duty expenses - Held that:- This ground of appeal is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of special bench in DCIT vs. Glaxo Smith Healthcare Ltd. [2007 (7) TMI 334 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] wherein held Section 43B in clear terms provides that the deduction claimed by the assessee in respect of any sum paid by way of tax, duty, cess or fee, shall be allowed only in computing the income referred to in section 28 of that previous year in which it was actually paid, irrespective of the previous year in which the liability was incurred for the payment of such sum as per the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. For the purpose of claiming benefit of deduction of the su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.l0,00,00,000/- made by the A.O. on account of customs duty expense. 3(ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting and not remanding the additional evidence furnished by the assessee to the A.O. and thereby violated the provisions of Rule 46A of I.T. Rules. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for relevant AY on 27.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1845/Mum/2014 dated 21.09.2016 relating to AY 2009-10 considered the almost identical issue and made the following order: 10. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. We have also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by AO and CIT(A) in his order as well as cited by ld. AR and DR during the course of hearing before us, in the context of factual matrix of the case. From the record we found that assessee used to pay custom duty on import of raw marbles blocks, which is based on its weight. The custom duty paid on these blocks include a component of CENVAT, which assessee is entitled to take a credit for set-off, under inverted duty structure . The CIT(A) has categorically recorde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... le of finished goods, as a result of inclusion in sales, were also taken into account. After giving detailed finding at para 3.3 to 3.12, the CIT(A) deleted the addition. The detailed finding recorded by CIT(A) after observing that assessee has been consistently following the same method of adjustment u/s.145A over the years has not been controverted by Id. DR by brining any positive material on record. The detailed working so arrived at by CIT(A) and the findings given there on are as per material on record, thus, do not require any interference on our part. Accordingly, we upheld the order of the CIT(A) for deleting the addition made by the AO u/s. 145A of the I.T. Act. Thus, considering the decision of the coordinate bench, we find .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) fell in error in holding that since the assessee-firm debited the cost of goods imported including the duty, paid on delivery of goods in the trading account in April, 1987, and before the actual delivery of the goods, the value of the goods and customs duty paid thereon was shown in the balance-sheet as document in hands, therefore, the deduction should be allowed in the assessment year 1988-89, is contrary to the prescription of law. Section 43B in clear terms provides that the deduction claimed by the assessee in respect of any sum paid by way of tax, duty, cess or fee, shall be allowed only in computing the income referred to in section 28 of that previous year in which it was actually paid, irrespec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates