9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. We find that the additions have been made by the A.O only because he found no transaction done in the accounts of the impugned creditors. In our considered opinion, this cannot be a sufficient cause for holding that there is a remission or cessation of liability. Since there is no categorical finding by the A.O that there is a remission or cessation of liability, we decline to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- D.R. could not controvert the factual findings made by the ld. CIT(A) nor the ld. D.R. could point out any factual error in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Since this is a case of reimbursement of expenditure, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 956/Ahd/2011 and C.O. No. 102/Ahd/2011 are appeals by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the Assessee against the very same order of the ld. CIT(A)-XVI, Ahmedabad dated 28.12.2010 pertaining to A.Y. 2007-08. The appeal and the Cross Objection are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The revenue has raised five substantive grounds of appeal:- 1. The ld. CIT(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 15,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of valuation of closing stock. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred and on facts in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 45,238/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of insurance premium on two new vehicles. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances during the year under consideration and, therefore, similar view is taken. 4. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 1 is accordingly dismissed. 5. Ground no. 2 relates to the deletion of the disallowance of ₹ 45,238/- made by the A.O on account of insurance premium on two new vehicles. 6. While scrutinizing the return of income, the A.O found that the assessee has purchased new vehicles on which it has paid insurance premium. The A.O was of the firm belief that the insurance premium paid on the new vehicles has to be treated as capital expenditure. The A.O accordingly treated the insuran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 2,89,289/- 9. While scrutinizing the balance sheet, the A.O found that following creditors on which no payment has been made during the past three years and there have been no transactions:- (a) Gupta Tobacco 7049 (b) Flexi Engineering Co. 91800 (c) Kevin Technology 39670 (d) Nirav Pharma 150770 Total 289289 10. The assessee was asked to explain why the above creditors should not be added back as income u/s. 41(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,807/- made by the A.O u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 14. This issue has been considered by the A.O at page 6 on para 10 of his order wherein he has observed that the assessee has claimed expenditure of ₹ 1,09,57,370/- on account of reimbursement of dealer expenses. Assessee was asked to explain the nature of expenditure. Assessee filed a complete details explaining that the impugned expenditures have been incurred and the assessee has simply reimbursed the same. It was explained that for similar reasons no tax has been deducted at source. The A.O was of the opinion that as per the provisions of Section 194C of the Act, the assessee was under legal obligation to deduct tax at source failing which it has violated the provisions of Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical set of facts, when the law is the same, rule of consistency prohibits such action of the A.O. We draw support from the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court given in the case of Radhasoami Satsang 193 ITR 321. Ground no. 4 is accordingly dismissed. 17. Ground no. 5 relates to the deletion of the disallowance of ₹ 3,84,079/-. 18. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the A.O found that the assessee has made payments totaling to ₹ 5,12,106/- and has claimed the same as expenditure in relation to Trade Mark Registration. The A.O did not accept the contention of the assessee in claiming this expenditure as revenue expenditure. Since the trade mark is considered as a capital asset, the A.O treated ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
