9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, was correct in law in not allowing the assessee to claim deduction of Rs. 2,45,21,333/- in respect of write-off of advances made to another concern whose business was inextricably connected with the assessee's business; particularly when such advances were made in the course of business and as a matter of commercial expediency, and write-off of the same represented trading loss allowable in computing the profits and gains of business u/s. 28 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in not allowing deduction in respect of site expenses of Rs. 12,22,279/- (based on provision made in accordance with the accounting standards and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 008 CIT(A) dismissed the appellant-assessee's appeal. (c) On further appeal to the Tribunal the appellant-assessee also sought deduction of Rs. 2.45 crores as a business loss under Section 28 of the Act. The Tribunal by the impugned order from the facts on record found that the bank guarantee of Rs. 41.75 lakhs was given to the customers of its sister concern M/s. MPFSL (originally a part of the same company before de-merger) at the instance of the appellant-assessee. The balance sought to be written off were advances given to its sister concern MPFSL. In the result, the impugned order holds that Rs. 41.75 lakhs being the amount of bank guarantee given at the instance of appellant-assessee to the customers of M/s. MPFSL, could be reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penditure at site for executing contracts of water supply amounting to Rs. 84.32 lakhs. This included provision of Rs. 12.22 lakhs as the corresponding Revenue has been accounted during the subject Assessment Year. Although the payment of Rs. 12.22 lakhs were made in the next Assessment Year. However, the Assessing Officer by Assessment Order dated 24th December, 2007 disallowed the same as appellant-assessee had not furnished details regarding the basis of provision of Rs. 12.22 lakhs. (b) Being aggrieved, the appellant-assessee carried the issue in appeal to the CIT(A). However, by order dated 31st December, 2008 the appeal was also dismissed by the CIT(A). This also for the reason that the appellant-assessee had not furnished details o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
