9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see. - ITA No. 2107/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 22-5-2015 - J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM And AT Varkey, JM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri K Sampath, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Vikram Sahay, Sr. DR ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-XVIII, New Delhi dated 20.1.2012 pertaining to the A.Y. 2008-09. 2. Facts in brief:- The assessee is a company and is engaged in manufacture and trading of electrical goods (geysers, fans etc.), cables, metals, cloth and appliances. The assessee has s a manufacturing unit at Manpura (Baddi) Himachal Pradesh and branches at Ghaziabad and Patna. The head office is in New Delhi. The assessee claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved stock from Manpura and transferred stock to Delhi. Besides, perusal of the list of items sold by Delhi office, as per the stock register, shows that the items sold by the Delhi unit includes Geysers and fans i.e. the item which are manufactured at Manpura. Similarly from Ghaziabad sales of geysers and fans form a substantial portion of the total sales. Thus, the appellant assertions that, only goods which are not manufactured by Manpura unit are sold by Delhi office is wrong. However, at the Patna branch there has been no sales during the year. 4. Further at page 9 the Ld.CIT(A) has concluded as follows. In the case of the assessee the facts clearly reveals that there is close interlinking of the units located at Manpura, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osition of law and facts of the matter need to be deleted. The Ld.CIT(A)- XVIII, N.Del has also erred in confirming the additions made by the AO. (i) The ld.AO is not justified in considering the entire loss of Ghaziabad unit amounting to Rsl1,46,591/- as loss of Baddi (Manpura) unit. However, such loss entirely relates to Ghaziabad. (ii) The ld.AO is not justified in disallowing ₹ 632434/- on estimated basis by taking 1% profits on turnover of ₹ 63243409/- of Baddi unit, considering them as profits derived from head office and branches on account of getting services, which are taken on absurd and hypothetical assumptions. 3. That the appellant reserves the right to create, leave, add, modify and amend any ground of app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) and submitted that the assessee s assertion that the items sold by the Delhi Unit does not consist of goods manufactured by Manpura Unit is factually wrong. He argued that good produced by Manpura Unit are transferred to head office and branches and they are in turn sold at a profit and hence the entire profits of Manpura Unit should not be attributable to manufacturing activity. He submitted that the profits are partly derived from trading account and under those circumstances the First Appellate Authority rightly confirmed the order of the AO. 8. After hearing rival contentions and perusing the papers on record and orders of the authorities below, we hold as follows. 9. The assessee in its letter dt. 8.11.2010 which is put at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
