9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is nothing but a notional capital loss. That being the fact of the matter it cannot be allowed as Revenue expenditure. Against assessee. Addition on the basis of TDS certificate - Held that:- The whole dispute revolves around whether the assessee has shown the impugned sale in its earlier years return. It is the say of the lower authorities that the assessee has not filed necessary details whereas it is the contention of the assessee that the Revenue authorities did not appreciate the facts of the case properly. In the interest of justice and fair play, this issue needs further verification in the light of the documents submitted by the assessee before us. The assessee is directed to substantiate its claim by filing necessary docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has claimed an amount of Rs. 30,34,000/- on account of diminution in value of investment. The assessee was asked to explain why the diminution in value of investment should not be disallowed. In response to which, the assessee vide letter dt. 16.11.2007 explained as under: The assessee has made a strategic investment in the business of M/s. Flexcel International Pvt. Ltd. at a cost of Rs. 54,28,500/-. Thus unit was in the similar business and hence its expertise was to be utilized for the purpose of assessee s business. This investment was in the nature of long term investment. In terms of the accounting standard AS 13, the same has been treated accordingly in the books of account. The company s share value has continuously declined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the AO. 6. Aggrieved by this finding of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is before us. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated that the assessee has suffered a loss as the value of the shares have been eroded by Rs. 30,34,000/- and this loss was out of the investment made by the assessee in the business of M/s. Flexcel International Pvt. Ltd. The investment was made to the tune of Rs. 54,28,500/-. The Ld. Counsel argued that as there was sharp fall in the value of the shares of M/s. Flexcel International Pvt. Ltd., the assessee has suffered a loss of Rs. 30,34,000/-. It is the say of the Counsel that by purchasing majority stake in M/s. Flexcel International Pvt. Ltd, the purpose of the assessee was to save time and energy on the tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discrepancy in the figure of sales shown in TDS certificate and the sale amount shown in the details of sales filed by the assessee. The AO sought clarification from the assessee to which the assessee replied as under: The difference in sale as shown in the Profit Loss account and as per the TDS certificates is mainly due to the payments made by HDFC Bank and other customers in the subsequent year and also the tax deduction certificate issued for that year. Though the assessee has accounted the sales as per its mercantile system of accounting and claimed TDS on the basis of actual certificates received for that year, the customers have issued TDS certicates for the subsequent year resulting in such anomaly. It must be noted here th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the year. The Ld. Counsel further stated that if at all the Revenue authorities are not convinced, they should have declined to give credit for the TDS but cannot make the addition. To support his submission, the Ld. Counsel submitted a statement of TDS reconciliation and copy of account of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., and HDFC Bank Ltd. 15. The ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and documents filed by the Ld. Counsel during the course of the proceedings. The whole dispute revolves around whether the assessee has shown the impugned sale in its earlier years return. It is the say of the lower author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee was asked to explain why the same should not be considered for the FBT. The assessee explained that the amount has been incurred as reimbursement to staff who suffered heavily during the floods in Mumbai. The AO was of the opinion that the assessee has incurred flood relief expenses for the Employees Welfare and not considered for the purpose of FBT. Applying the provisions of Sec. 115WC(1), the AO worked out the FBT at Rs. 2,81,475/-. 21. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) but without any success. 22. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated that the expenses have been incurred purely as philanthropic measure as during the heavy water logging in Mumbai, the employees of the assessee suffered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
