Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (5) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (5) TMI 165 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of addition of ?9,36,000 as bogus purchases from M/s Sumukh Corporation and application of GP rate at 2% on the alleged bogus purchases.
2. Disallowance of ?1,84,741 under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D(2) of the Rules.

Issue 1: Confirmation of Addition of ?9,36,000 as Bogus Purchases and Application of GP Rate:

The appellant contested the addition of ?9,36,000 as bogus purchases from M/s Sumukh Corporation and the application of a 2% GP rate on these purchases. The AO rejected the books of account under section 145(3) of the Act due to lack of evidence provided by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition, noting that the assessee failed to produce necessary evidence during both assessment and appellate proceedings. The ld.CIT(A) highlighted discrepancies in the bills and lack of evidence regarding transportation and payment terms. The appellate tribunal, after considering the submissions and case law, set aside the ld.CIT(A)'s order. It directed the AO to delete the addition on account of bogus purchases, while sustaining the disallowance on account of GP to prevent revenue leakage.

Issue 2: Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2) of the Rules:

The second issue pertained to the disallowance of ?1,84,741 under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D(2) of the Rules. The ld.CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, following precedents and asserting the applicability of section 14A r.w.r.8D to the assessee's case. The appellant argued that since their own funds exceeded the investments in shares, no disallowance was warranted under section 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. Citing relevant case law, the appellant contended that only the disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii) should be sustained. The tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument, deleting the disallowance of ?1,36,549 while upholding the disallowance of ?48,202 under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the addition on account of bogus purchases while sustaining the disallowance on account of GP. Additionally, the tribunal deleted the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r.8D(2)(ii) of the Rules but upheld the disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates