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 →

Waban Software Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT-Range-8 (3) , Mumbai.

Disallowance of claim of depreciation - Held that:- FAA had no occasion to verify the correctness of the claim made by the assessee in absence of the said documents. Therefore,we are of the opinion that,in the interest of justice,matter should be restored back to the file of the FAA for fresh adjudication.He would decide the issue after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and after considering the additional evidences produced before us. Ground is decided in favour of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in our opinion the order of the FAA does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Upholding the same, we decide ground of appeal against the assessee. - I.T.A./2011/Mum/2014 - Dated:- 12-4-2017 - Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member For The Revenue : Shri Purshottam Kumar For The Assessee : S/Shri Paras Savla and Pratik Poddar Order u/s.254(1)of the Income- tax Act,1961(Act) PER RAJENDRA, AM Challenging the order dated 13.12.2013 of CIT(A)-18, Mumbai the assessee had fil .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oices of fixed assets purchased during the year aggregating to ₹ 88.15 lakhs could not be produced before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), that the FAA had rejected the additional invoices of ₹ 49.60 lakhs submitted before him as additionall evidence, that the evidence would go to the root of the issue.Assessee has referred to the cases of Suhasini Goenka (216ITR518) and Satya Sethia(143ITR486) alongwith the application, the assessee has furnished a chart showing details of depre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Departmental Representative(DR) stated that the issue of additional evidence could be decided on merits by the Bench. 2.2. After hearing the rival submissions,we are of the opinion that the additional evidences produced by the assessee(Pg.91-176)should be admitted as per Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules,as the documents are crucial to decide the issue before us.The assessee has shown a reasonable cause for not producing the same before the AO/FAA.Therefore,same are taken on record. 3. First Effective .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ee to submit complete evidence in the shape of bills and vouchers to prove the genuineness of the additions made to the block of assets.In response to the show cause notice,the assessee expressed its difficulty to produce the details called for.It was contended that subsequent to the filing of return there was change in the management of the company, followed by change in employees handling the work. The AO further directed the assessee to submit the relevant evidence.The assessee produced ledge .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

itted additional evidence before the FAA which included bank statement.The FAA sent the bank statement to the AO for examination and submitted a remand report. Vide his letter dated 17.9.2013, the AO submitted the report in that regard. He forwarded a copy of remand the report to the assessee and issued a show cause notice to it to explain as to why depreciation, amounting to ₹ 23.71 lakhs allowed by the AO, without verifying the bills and vouchers should not be disallowed and enhancement .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

question, that the documentary evidences and details were not filed citing the reason of change of management, that the AO had wrongly allowed depreciation of ₹ 29,65,986/-, without verifying the bills/vouchers, that a notice of enhancement was issued to the assessee, that in response to the enhancement notice the assessee had argued that the AO had allowed depreciation of ₹ 15.45 lakhs in respect of fixed assets/additions of ₹ 80.56 lakhs based on the vendors name appearing 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

of ₹ 15.45 lakhs in place of ₹ 23.71 lakhs as mentioned in the enhancement notice. He directed the AO to verify the figures and adopt the correct figures. 3.1. Before us,the AR stated that the additional evidences produced before the Tribunal were not considered by the revenue authorities,that the assessee had purchased the plant, machinery,furniture,that evidences could not be produced due to change in management. The DR supported the order of the FAA. 3.2. We have already admitted .....

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 assessee,in part. 4. Next ground of appeal is about further disallowance of ₹ 15.45 lakhs made by the FAA. In the earlier paragraph we have narrated the facts of disallowance made by him on account of depreciation. Following our order for the First ground of appeal, we restore the matter of claim about the depreciation to the file of FAA for fresh adjudication. Second ground is also decided in favour of the assessee, in part. 5. Last ground of appeal is about upholding the disallowance o .....

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