Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1242 - ITAT DELHITaxability of commission received in advance in respect of purchases accounted for in the next financial year - Held that:- The advance commission received in respect of purchases accounted for in the succeeding year should not be brought to tax in the year of receipt. The facts and circumstances of the instant ground are, admittedly, similar. In view of the foregoing and respectfully following the precedent, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 32.37 lac and erred in sustaining the remaining addition. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed and that by the Revenue is dismissed. Addition on account of Rebates and write offs - Held that:- The amount receivable from debtors was, admittedly, written off during the year for which necessary details were also produced before the ld.CIT(A) and, in turn, before the Assessing Officer in remand proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. vs. CIT [2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT] has held that claim for bad debt has to be allowed on a mere write off and there is no further need to prove that the amount of debt became bad during the year. In view of the above binding precedent, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. Addition of sales-tax along with surcharge and such sales-tax paid during the year was debited under the head ‘Repairs and renewals - Held that:- CIT(A) deleted the addition by noticing that ₹ 11,27,955/- was the amount of sales-tax paid by the assessee during the year in respect of sales-tax assessments completed and such amount was not of a penal nature. The ld. DR could not controvert the findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A) with any cogent evidence. Since the said sum represented the payment of sales-tax made during the year, the same, in our considered opinion, was rightly allowed by the ld. CIT(A). Disallowance on account of interest expenses as assessee has not capitalized proportionate interest cost allocable to Capital Work in Progress - Held that:- The ground reproduced above does not arise out of the impugned order. In fact, the Assessing Officer made two additions, namely, one u/s 14A to the tune of ₹ 1,83,397/- and another on account of advance commission amounting to ₹ 68,65,000/-, which the ld. CIT(A) dealt with in the impugned order. There is no reference whatsoever to subject matter encapsuled in the ground extracted above. The ld. DR also fairly admitted that this ground does not arise from the impugned order. Under these circumstances, we dismiss the ground taken above as not arising from the impugned order.
|