2012 (12) TMI 597 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 41(1) of sundry creditors - No purchases and sales were made during the year under consideration - Said amount was taken by the assessee as an advance for sale in earlier years Held that - The assessee has filed a copy of account of the said party, according to which, the payments have already been made to the said party. The payments have been shown to be debited to the bank account of the assessee and copies of bank accounts are also filed. Issue decides in favour of assessee Applicability of notification - Derivative transaction treated as speculative transaction AO notice that transactions entered into by the assessee before 29th December 2005 covered under u/s 43(5)(d) CBDT notified on 25th January 2006 regarding exclusion of derivative transaction from Sec 43(5) - Held that - Following the decision in case of Claris Lifesciences (2008 (8) TMI 579 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) once the approval is granted in the relevant previous year, and in the absence of anything indicated to the contrary, the approval has to be taken as effective from the beginning of the relevant year. Hence the derivate transactions, entered into by the assessee at the recognized stock exchanges even prior to the date of notification in the relevant previous year, are to be treated as covered by the exclusion clause set out in Sec. 43(5)(d). Issue decides in favour of assessee

Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenses from proprietary firms
2. Addition under section 41(1) of sundry creditors
3. Disallowance of expenses from another proprietary firm
4. Disallowance of loss on derivatives transactions

Issue 1: Disallowance of Expenses from Proprietary Firms
The Assessing Officer disallowed various expenses from the proprietary firms of the assessee, namely M/s. Ashwin & Co. and M/s. Art Craft International. The disallowances included business promotion expenses, telephone expenses, motor car expenses, staff welfare expenses, maintenance, and more. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed these disallowances, leading to an appeal by the assessee. The counsel for the assessee did not provide substantial arguments to justify the rejection of the disallowances, resulting in the dismissal of this ground.

Issue 2: Addition under Section 41(1) of Sundry Creditors
The Assessing Officer added a balance of Rs. 2,00,000 under section 41(1) concerning sundry creditors. The assessee claimed this amount as an advance for sales in a prior year. Despite the assessee's explanation, the addition was made. In the appeal, the additional evidence presented by the assessee, including ledger accounts and bank statements, proved that the amount had been paid through account payee cheques. The Tribunal, considering the evidence, deleted the addition, ruling in favor of the assessee.

Issue 3: Disallowance of Expenses from Another Proprietary Firm
The Assessing Officer disallowed expenses from M/s. Art Craft International due to incomplete vouchers, leading to a 20% disallowance. The assessee contended for a reduction to 10%, which was partially allowed by the Tribunal. The disallowance was restricted to 10% of the gross amount, directing the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowances accordingly.

Issue 4: Disallowance of Loss on Derivatives Transactions
The Assessing Officer treated derivative losses as speculative transactions under section 43(5)(d) of the Act, disallowing the amount for carry forward. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. However, the Tribunal found a precedent in favor of the assessee, citing a co-ordinate bench's decision. Following this precedent, the Tribunal allowed the ground raised by the assessee, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, addressing various issues related to disallowances, additions, and treatment of losses on derivative transactions.

← Previous Next →