9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: The judgment involves a revision order u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai-III, concerning various issues not considered by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2005-06.
Interest free advance: The Commissioner held that the assessment order was erroneous as certain issues were not examined by the Assessing Officer, including interest-free advance to a partnership firm. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the advances were not made out of borrowed funds, citing a previous judgment and holding that no disallowance of interest was warranted. Income from transportation of goods and sales return in vehicle division: The Commissioner's directions on these issues were upheld as the assessee did not press these grounds during the hearing, accepting the Commissioner's findings. Prior period expenditure: The assessee contended that the prior period expenditure was genuine and had been thoroughly examined by the assessing authority, arguing that the amounts in question were reversals of prior period adjustments. The Tribunal found the assessee's contentions forceful and in line with the facts of the case. Disallowance u/s 43B: The Commissioner directed a disallowance under section 43B, which the assessee challenged. The Tribunal examined the case where interest payable to LIC was converted into a term loan, finding that the assessee had met the conditions of section 43B by paying the amounts due within the stipulated time, thus no disallowance was warranted. Sale of capital assets: The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had properly verified the sale consideration for land sales, considering guideline values and sale deeds, and concluded that the Commissioner's finding on this issue had no basis. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i): The assessee argued that the payment to foreign shipping companies was covered under a specific section, and hence, disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was not applicable. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's interpretation and found no basis for the Commissioner's direction. Assessment order review: The Tribunal examined the assessment proceedings and found that the Assessing Officer had applied due diligence, issuing a detailed questionnaire and seeking clarifications on various matters. Considering the detailed replies provided by the assessee, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was not erroneous and set aside the Commissioner's revision order on most issues. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, upholding the Commissioner's directions on income from transportation of goods and sales return in the vehicle division, while vacating the order on other issues discussed by him. The Assessing Officer was directed to act in accordance with the law on the upheld issues.
|
