9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to HDFC Bank by holding that such interest payable was not covered u/s. 43B(e) without appreciating that such interest ought to have been capitalized since it was payable on term loan for construction of office premises building. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing bad debts of Rs.2,58,62,963/-by observing that the assessee need not furnish the proof of debts having become bad which is contrary to the provisions of sec.36(1)(vii) of the IT Act and the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Oman International Bank (as reported in 313 ITR 128) (2009) (Bom) which lays down that the write off of bad debt has to be a bonafide commercial decision. 4. On the facts and circum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in confirming the addition of payments of Rs.1,68,000 to Right Click towards purchase of two computers for the winners of subscription scheme. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of payments to Marg Publications of Rs.16,500. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of payments to Media Research Users Council óf Rs.l,49,813." CO/144/10 (Cross objections by the assessee) " 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.25,45,743 being payment of employees' contribution to provident fund. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of sec. 43B(e). 4. Ground no. 2 filed by the AO stands rejected. 5. Ground no. 3 of the appeal by the Revenue and Grounds no. 1to 7 of the appeal filed by the assessee are interconnected.AO has discussed the issue at paragraph B (page 3 to 5) of the assessment orders.As per AO prior period expenses amounting to Rs.2.58 Crores were not allowable. As per the AO, the assessee filed ledger accounts of 7 parties in respect of the claim made, but did not filed any details with regard to other parties for which expenses were claimed as per the Revised Return of income. AO held that the said expenses pertained to prior period and, hence, were not allowable during the assessment year under consideration. 6. The assessee preferred an appeal be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee before the AO about balance amount, that claim was made by filing a revised return, that there was no proof of debts becoming bad, that amount was shown as prior period expenses and the FAA allowed the same as bad debts. AR submitted that actually sums in question were bad debts, that same were misclassified in the revised return that FAA had disallowed the same without appreciating the facts. 9. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material on record we are of the opinion that matter should be restricted back to the file of the AO. It is a fact that the assessee in the revised return also had not claimed the said amount as bad debts.AO has categorically stated that except for 7 parties details were not fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concerns from the borrowed funds, yet same were advanced for commercial expediency, that advance were in pursuance of an agreement, that the assessee was granted permission to publish a magazine without payment or royalty and reduced payment of assets usage charges. He allowed the expenditure incurred on account of interest on borrowing. 14. Before us, the DR submitted that FAA had not mentioned as how the payment of Rs.2.33 Crores commensurate with asset usage charges, that agreement of royalty reduction and usage charges was not available to the AO.AR supported the order of the FAA. He also relied upon the orders of the Tribunal for the AYs 1998-99, 2000-01, 2001- 02 and 2002-03. We have perused the said orders but find that facts of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany in the said appeal. So,we are not passing a separate order in this regard. As held in para 10,Grounds of appeal no.1-7 of the appeal of the assessee stand partially allowed 19.Now, we would like to discuss issues raised in the cross objection [CO] raised by the assessee. Ground no. 1 of CO is about disallowance of employees' contribution amounting to Rs. 25.45 lakhs to provident fund, whereas, Ground no. 2 is about disallowance of employees' contribution to ESIC amounting to Rs.62,041/-.As per AO contribution on both the accounts were not paid on due dates, hence same were not allowable.During the appellate proceeding FAA confirmed the disallowance. AR submitted that contribution to provident fund and ESIC were made before the filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
