9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 896X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pressed. 3. Ground No.11 relates to addition on account of bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 85,87,489/-. The brief facts are that the assessee has incurred freight forwarding expenses for the captioned assessment year of approximately Rs. 6.13 crores. Of that, at the time of scrutiny assessment, the learned Assessing Officer ('AO') picked up 4 vendors from whom the assessee has availed services. The following are the 4 vendors: Name of the vendor PAN Amount of disallowance (in Rs. ) Emirates Shipping Line DMCEST AABCE5724H 40,56,850 Namaste India Aviation Private Limited AADCN7512J 25,07,770 Lakshmanan Ramchandran ASCPR5834K 15,17,300 Sea Bridge Maritime Agencies Private Limited AADCS95688 5,05,569 Total 85,87,489 4. In the draft assessment order ld. AO has disallowed the purchases made from the aforesaid parties mainly for the reason that vendor party has not filed its return of income or the vendor party has not filed business return of income. On that basis he has confirmed the entire purchases as 'bogus purchases'. Apart from that in case of one of the party Lakshmanan Ramchandran, he held that assessee has failed to submit any documentary ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces used, then how can the transaction be treated as bogus to disallow the expenses debited and thus, addition made on account of bogus purchases cannot be sustained and same is deleted. 7. With regard to other three parties also the same reasons have been given by the ld. AO. It is seen that assessee had received freight services from Namaste India Aviation Private Limited; road transport services from Lakshmanan Ramchandran; and ocean freight, bunker charges, sea charges, port handling charges from Sea Bridge Maritime Agencies Private Limited and for availing these services, assessee has deducted TDS and also filed complete invoices and bank statement to evidence the payment which was there in the DRP also. In light of these documents, it is difficult to hold that these are bogus expenses. Simply because these parties might not have filed the return of income but that does not lead to inference that transaction is bogus. Thus, the addition made by the ld. AO is directed to be deleted. 9. In ground No.12, assessee has raised disallowance pertaining to reversal of provision of lease rent of Rs. 53,91,234/- 10. The ld. AO noted that assessee has claimed Rs. 54,10,894/- on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; Opening Balance (C) 30,67,405 Note 6 of the Financial Statements (Page no 206 of Factual paperbook) Closing Balance (D) 25,94,065 Note 6 of the Financial Statements (Page no 206 of Factual paperbook) Difference (D-C) - Net amount allowed in the computation of Income of AY 2015-16 -4,73,340 Refer Computation (Page no. 215 of Factual paperbook) AY 2016-17 Opening Balance (E) 25,94,065 Note 6 of the Financial Statements (Page no 209 of Factual paperbook) Closing Balance (F) 27,76,753 Mote 6 of the Financial Statements (Page no 209 of Factual paperbook Difference (F-E) - Disallowed in the Computation of Income of AY 2016-17 1,82.688 Refer Computation (Page no. 216 of Factual paperbook) AY 2017-18 Opening Balance (G) 27,76,753 Note 6 of the Financial Statements Page no 213 of Factual paperbook) Closing Balance (H) 53,91,234 Note 6 of the Financial Statements (Page no 213 of Factual paperbook) Difference (H-G) - Disallowed in the computation of Income of AY 2017-18 26,14,481 Refer Computation (Page no. 217 of Factual paperbook) AY 2018-19 Opening Balance (I) 53,91, 234 Note 6 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts as per Section 50 and the block of asset did not cease to exist and hence, it was not required to consider short term capital gains while computing its taxable income. Accordingly, amount of Rs. 19,660/- which has been credited to the profit and loss account has been reduced while computing the business income because it is a capital receipt. The only manner in which it could have taxed was as per Section 50 however, once assessee has reduced from the block of asset and said block of asset does not ceased to exist therefore, there is no requirement to consider it for short term capital gains. Accordingly, we do not find any reason for such disallowance made by the ld. AO and the same is allowed. 15. In Ground No.14 assessee has challenged the addition u/s.43B of the Act of Rs. 9,33,311/-. 16. The brief facts are that the appellant had reported a returned Income of Rs 60,49,33,680 as per the ROI filed on 30/11/2018. Subsequently, an intimation dated 20/02/2020 was issued under Section 143(1) of the Act wherein the income was computed at Rs. 60,58,66,989 vis-a-vis the returned income of Rs 60,49,33,680. 17. On perusal of the intimation, it was observed that the difference of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
