TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and also the ledger a/c of the parties are submitted before us and the certificate is also given that these documents have been filed before the AO and the CIT (A) except for the information from M/s. Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd and M/s. Ajanta Pharma Ltd before the CIT (A). We find that the CIT (A) has failed to consider the same nor has she called for a remand report from the AO for the evidence filed by the assessee. In view of the same, we deem it fit and proper to remand the Grounds 2 to 6 to the file of the AO for verification and reconsideration in accordance with law. Therefore, Grounds 2 to 6 are allowed for statistical purposes. Assessee had submitted detailed submissions before the CIT (A) but without verifying the same, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordingly notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. In response to the same, the assessee attended through its representative and furnished the requisite information and clarifications. 3. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that there was a difference between the receipts reported by the assessee in its return of income and Form 26AS. He found that the receipts from conversion charges are ₹ 2,72,76,026.05 as against ₹ 1,54,11,244/- reported by the assessee in its return of income. The assessee was therefore, asked to reconcile the discrepancy. In response, the assessee furnished a reconciliation statement wherein the assessee has stated that though the bills were raised by the assessee durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the assessee has earned an income of ₹ 13,63,190/- from its trading unit which is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IC and also income of ₹ 5,24,127/- from other sources, whereas, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IC on the entire income. The assessee was therefore, asked to explain as to why the deduction u/s 80IC should not be withdrawn from the income from trading unit and income from other units. The assessee submitted that proportionate net profit of trading unit may be treated as income from the trading unit, but since the details of expenses pertaining exclusively to the trading unit have not been furnished by the assessee, the AO disallowed the entire sum of ₹ 13,63,190/- treating it as income from trading ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h invoices on receipt of the same in April 2013 in the previous year 2013-14 and made the payments after deducting taxes for Ay 2014-15. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the material filed before her and simply has gone by Form 26AS which cannot be the basis for making addition. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 11,57,700 being the loan amount of ₹ 11,57,700 received by the Appellant from M/ s. Ajanta Pharma Limited as unreported turnover of the Appellant. Inspite of the fact that Appellant produced confirmation letter in support of loan transaction from M/s.Ajantha Pharma Limited, the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the same. 6. The Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowance of deduction under section 80IC of the Act in respect of trading done of ₹ 13,63,190. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there was no income from the sales made to H.O. of ₹ 13,63,190 and that the action of the AO in disallowing the trading receipt of ₹ 13,63,190 in entirety from the income eligible for deduction under section 801C of the Act is incorrect. 12. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that in the absence of separate account for trading, the amount that could have been disallowed is only ₹ 1, 19,386 which is the gross profit in respect of trading with H.O. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have disallowed the entir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so given that these documents have been filed before the AO and the CIT (A) except for the information from M/s. Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd and M/s. Ajanta Pharma Ltd before the CIT (A). We find that the CIT (A) has failed to consider the same nor has she called for a remand report from the AO for the evidence filed by the assessee. In view of the same, we deem it fit and proper to remand the Grounds 2 to 6 to the file of the AO for verification and reconsideration in accordance with law. Therefore, Grounds 2 to 6 are allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards Grounds 8 to 9 also, we find that the assessee had submitted detailed submissions before the CIT (A) but without verifying the same, the CIT (A) has confirmed the order of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
