9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred denying the applicability of Tonnage Tax Provisions to Sundry credit balance written back of Rs. 14,23,705/- u/s. 41(1) of I.T. Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing excess provisions written back of Rs. 95,78,424 u/s. 41(1) of the I.T. Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in denying application to Tonnage Tax provisions on prior period income u/s. 41(1) of the I.T. Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in denying application of Tonnage Tax Provisions to Sundry receipts of liquidate damages of Rs. 3,77,07,022/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sundries 1,31,38,045 --- ---- 1,31,38,045 10. Application money-Right to Information Act 1,878 --- --- 1,878 Total 11,81,44,369 6,51,21,231 10,28,28,253 1,53,16,116 5. The Revenue is aggrieved by the relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. A perusal of the assessment order show that the impugned addition/disallowances made by the AO are based upon the findings given in earlier year's assessment order. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition/disallowances following the earlier years order of the Tribunal. In ITA No. 145/M/2011, the Tribunal has considered the impugned issues at para 29 of its order which reads as under: "Provisions of section 115VA provides that the income from busin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifferently. The first being expenditure claimed in pretonnage tax scheme assessment years and the second being expenditure claimed in post tonnage tax scheme assessment years. Such a segregation is not permissible under the Act. Both the incomes are incomes from core activity and just because tax rates different, they cannot be treated as non-business income. The Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) seem to have been influenced by the fact that the assessee has an income of Rs. 800 crores in its Profit & Loss account and whereas he has offered only Rs. 18 crores to tax under the tonnage tax scheme. The decision whether a particular income has to be brought to tax or not, cannot be based on such a view of the matter. The l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the action of the authorities below in reducing the profit on sale of ships and fixed ships from the turnover of core shipping. The action of the authorities below in reducing the excess provision written back and sundry credit balances written back, however, is set aside and the A.O. is directed to include the said income in the turnover of core shipping. As regards item No. 3 (sundry receipts from core shipping) and item No. 6 (reimbursement from managed vessels), the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that neither the A.O. nor the ld. CIT(A) has examined the relevant details placed at 157 of the paper book and urged that the matter may be sent back to the A.O. for deciding the same afresh after verifying the said detail. As the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 10.3. After perusing the details on record, we find that commission on disbursements (receipts) of Rs. 4,27,948/- and Sundries amounting to Rs. 1,31,38,045/- have not been properly explained by supporting demonstrative evidences. We, therefore, restore these issues to the file of the AO. The assessee is directed to demonstrate its claim of receipts being directly related to the core activity/incidental activity by bringing cogent material evidences on record in respect of these 2 receipts and the AO is directed to examine the same and decide afresh whether these receipts can be clubbed under core activity/incidental activitity of the assessee. 10.4. In so far as rent on furniture of Rs. 62,044/- and Application money-right to info Act o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penditure claimed for earning income. The estimation of Rs. 1,00,000 by the Assessing Officer, in our opinion, is reasonable. Coming to reliance placed by the learned Sr. Counsel, on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court Chinai And Co. Pvt. Ltd. The Shipping Corp. of (I) Ltd. ITA no.145/M./2011 21 (supra), we are of the opinion that these are factual matters and the same cannot be taken as a binding precedent. In view of the above discussion, we uphold the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismiss ground no.7, raided by the assessee." 13. Similarly, in A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Tribunal has considered similar issue in ITA Nos. 2944 & 2945/M/2010 at para-18 of its order which reads as under: "As agreed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
