9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Deletion of customs duty from closing stock valuation under section 43B of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Allowance of expenditure on articles without proper evidence for business promotion. 3. Eligibility of the assessee for deduction under section 80-O of the IT Act, 1961. Issue 1: Deletion of customs duty from closing stock valuation: The Revenue appealed against the deletion of Rs. 4,56,44,707 customs duty from closing stock valuation under section 43B of the IT Act, 1961. The ITAT Delhi-C, after considering the arguments, found that the CIT(A)'s order was in line with the apex Court's judgment in Berger Paints India Ltd. case and the Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal's decision in Indian Communication Network (P) Ltd. case. The ITAT confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that there was no infirmity in the order. Issue 2: Expenditure allowance without proper evidence: Regarding the allowance of Rs. 5,08,416 expenditure on articles for business promotion without sufficient evidence, the ITAT noted that the assessee failed to provide details or evidence to prove the expenditure was for business promotion. The CIT(A) allowed 50% of the claim without concrete evidence. The ITAT disagreed with the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the claim lacked justification due to the absence of evidence. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored that of the AO. Issue 3: Eligibility for deduction under section 80-O: The assessee claimed eligibility for deduction under section 80-O of the IT Act, 1961, despite previous disallowances in other assessment years. The CIT(A) allowed the claim based on certain judgments and circulars. The ITAT observed that in previous years, similar claims were disallowed and presumed the assessee might have accepted those decisions. The ITAT emphasized the rule of consistency and referred the matter back to the AO for a decision considering the previous disallowances and relevant judgments. The ITAT modified the CIT(A)'s directions and instructed the AO to decide the issue independently based on past decisions and legal precedents. In conclusion, the Revenue's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the ITAT providing detailed analysis and decisions on each issue raised in the appeal.
|
