9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the ground that the said party is not traceable - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- ITAT has accepted the explanation offered by the Assessee that the purchase was in fact made from M/s. Amit Steel but was wrongly shown as having been made from M/s. Dharm Steel. This was perhaps on account of the fact that both proprietary concerns had the same proprietor. It appears that the Assessee also was able to produce the delivery challan for purchases made from M/s. Amit Steel and this was accepted by the ITAT. This finding of the ITAT having purely turned on facts, the Court is not persuaded to frame any question.- Decided against revenue Disallowance of service tax under Section 43B - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- ITAT has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the ITAT, it appears that UIL had debited its Profit and Loss Account with a sum of ₹ 3,73,39,842 on the basis of the bills raised by the Assessee whereas the Assessee had disclosed in its P L account receipts of only ₹ 2,63,47,582 from UIL. The explanation offered before the AO was that some of the bills were accounted for in the following Financial Year ('FY') i.e. 2008-09 as those bills were not approved due to some pending defect liability period work. It was claimed by the Assessee that it had not received the full and final payment of the bills raised on UIL in FY 2007-08. It received payment in the following FY and very much accounted those bills in FY 2008-09 for which we are enclosing our ledger account state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em of accounting as AS-7. The addition was accordingly maintained. 7. The ITAT, however, accepted that the Assessee was in the business of building construction, and had in fact followed AS-7 while finalising its accounts as per the mercantile system. The ITAT took note of the working submitted by the Assessee which indicated that the revenue earned from UIL has been shown in the accounts as per percentage completion method. 8. In response to a query by the Court on whether the stand of the Revenue was that the differential sum had not been offered for tax by the Assessee even in the subsequent FY 2008-09, the learned counsel for the Revenue stated that the stand of the Revenue was only that in P L Account for the AY in question i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
