9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 339 - AT - Income TaxAddition of consultancy income - Held that - The said amount has been included in the consultancy income declared by the assessee. The assessee having included the said amount in its income, we wonder how the same amount can be added again while computing taxable income. Irrespective of the fact whether assessee has rendered any services or not, the amount received by the assessee is income in its hand. The assessee having included such income in its profit and loss account, the same amount cannot be added and we direct the AO to delete the entire amount - Decided in favour of assessee Addition on account of unexplained cash received from students and trainees - Held that - the cash deposited in the bank account is duly accounted for. The assessee is maintaining regular books of accounts and the cash deposited in the bank account is duly reflected in the cash book maintained by the assessee. It is not the case of the AO that such cash deposited in bank account is not accounted for in the books of accounts of the assessee. Thus, the cash deposited in bank account is accounted for cash and we uphold the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the above said addition by holding that the cash deposited in the bank is fully accounted for and the addition made by the AO is ex-facie bad - Decided in favour of assessee Addition on account of bogus purchase of fixed assets - Held that - assessee is imparting education for various courses being run by it. For imparting education and running these courses the assessee has to have the fixed assets. The assessee in fact has purchased these fixed assets. It is not the case of the AO that assessee has not purchased these fixed assets. The AO is looking into the commercial expediency of the assessee. AO cannot examine the business, wisdom and the commercial expediency of the assessee. The assessee having purchased the fixed assets for the purpose of its business, no adverse view can be taken. We further note that the AO despite assessee claiming only depreciation on such fixed assets, has added back the entire amount. This clearly shows the arbitrariness on the part of the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) has considered the facts in the right perspective and has rightly deleted the addition - Decided in favour of assessee Addition on account of advertisement and business promotional expenses - allowable deduction u/s 37 - Held that - CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO. The assessee has submitted the complete details and the observations of the AO that assessee has not submitted the supporting evidence is factually incorrect. The assessee has actually incurred these expenditures and the same are duly accounted for in the books of accounts. The assessee is imparting education and training. The expenditure incurred is for publicizing such education and training courses being run by the assessee. Thus, the expenditure is directly related to the business of the assessee and the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition.- Decided in favour of assessee Addition on account of loan repaid by the assessee during the year - Held that - assessee has filed sufficient evidences so as to establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. As discussed above, there is nothing abnormal so as to draw any adverse inference against the assessee. It may be relevant to point out that he AO has made addition without application of mind. This fact gets established that AO has made addition of the amount paid back and not that of the amount received by the assessee. In fact, the above analysis clearly demonstrate that the assessee has discharged its onus fully in respect of the credit. The observation made by the AO in the assessment order are factually incorrect. The AO has not brought any material so as to draw any adverse inference.- Decided in favour of assessee Addition in respect of the credit appearing in the name of Piron Design Pvt. Ltd. - Held that - Firstly, the transaction is not that of cash credit. Even assuming that this is a cash credit, assessee has filed all necessary evidences so as to establish the identity and genuineness and creditworthiness. It is not only the income of the year under consideration that can only establish the creditworthiness of the creditor. It is the source from which the credit has arisen which is important for establishing the creditworthiness and the genuineness. In this case, the assessee has purchased the furniture and the credit has arisen on that account. Considering this fact, we hold that CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition. - Decided in favour of assessee Addition on account of unexplained administrative expenses - Held that - The assessee having incurred the expenditure, the AO cannot question the wisdom of the Assessee. The observation of the AO regarding classroom activity is also incorrect. AO has ignored the fact which has been rightly recorded by the CIT(A) that this classroom expenses relate to payment made to Reliance Webstore through which apparently E-learning classes were conducted. As gone through the details of the various expenses placed in the PB. Pg. 413-456. These details include details of salaries paid to employees with the services rendered, details of the travelling expenses incurred, details of the professional charges etc. After examination of these details, all these expenditure are related to the business activity of the assessee and it cannot be said that these expenditure have not been incurred. CIT(A) was right in deleting the additions- Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Relief of 50% of total addition of ?79,41,900/- on account of disallowance of bogus expenses and receipts from M/s ESAJV. 2. Deletion of addition of ?66,32,788/- on account of unexplained cash receipts from students and trainees. 3. Deletion of addition of ?40,25,735/- on account of bogus purchase of fixed assets. 4. Deletion of addition of ?30,76,879/- on account of advertisement and business promotion expenses. 5. Deletion of addition of ?1,53,80,453/- on account of unaccounted income being loan repayment. 6. Deletion of addition of ?5,62,725/- on account of unaccounted income being credit appearing in the name of M/s Piron Design (P) Ltd. 7. Deletion of addition of ?1,13,87,296/- on account of unexplained administrative expenses. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Relief of 50% of total addition of ?79,41,900/- on account of disallowance of bogus expenses and receipts from M/s ESAJV: The assessee received ?79,41,900/- from M/s ESAJV D-Art Indo India Pvt. Ltd. The AO added this amount as income, alleging no services were provided. The CIT(A) reduced the addition to 50%. The tribunal found that the assessee had already included this amount in its income and directed the AO to delete the entire addition. Thus, the Revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was allowed. 2. Deletion of addition of ?66,32,788/- on account of unexplained cash receipts from students and trainees: The AO added ?66,32,788/- as unexplained cash deposits. The assessee contended these were fees from students and trainees, fully accounted for in the books. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, and the tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the cash deposits were duly reflected in the cash book. Thus, the Revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed. 3. Deletion of addition of ?40,25,735/- on account of bogus purchase of fixed assets: The AO disallowed the purchase of fixed assets, deeming them unnecessary. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, and the tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the AO cannot challenge the business wisdom of the assessee. The assets were purchased for business purposes, and only depreciation was claimed. Thus, the Revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed. 4. Deletion of addition of ?30,76,879/- on account of advertisement and business promotion expenses: The AO disallowed these expenses, questioning their necessity. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, and the tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the expenses were genuine and necessary for publicizing the assessee's courses. Thus, the Revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed. 5. Deletion of addition of ?1,53,80,453/- on account of unaccounted income being loan repayment: The AO added this amount, alleging it was unaccounted income channeled through other companies. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, and the tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the assessee provided sufficient evidence of the transactions. The AO had added the amounts paid back, not received, demonstrating arbitrary action. Thus, the Revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed. 6. Deletion of addition of ?5,62,725/- on account of unaccounted income being credit appearing in the name of M/s Piron Design (P) Ltd: The AO treated this as a cash credit. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, and the tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the amount was for furniture and fixtures purchased, not a cash credit. The transaction was genuine and duly accounted for. Thus, the Revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed. 7. Deletion of addition of ?1,13,87,296/- on account of unexplained administrative expenses: The AO disallowed these expenses, alleging no business activity other than e-training. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, and the tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the expenses were necessary for the business and duly accounted for. The AO's observations were factually incorrect and arbitrary. Thus, the Revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed. Conclusion: The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on all grounds and allowed the assessee's cross-objection, directing the AO to delete the additions. The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions, as the expenses and transactions were genuine, necessary for the business, and duly accounted for in the books. The AO's actions were deemed arbitrary and not based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence.
|
