9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,690/- made by the Assessing Officer treating the purchases as bogus, since M/s Saibaba Sales Corporation was treated as a non-existent concern? [3] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has correctly appreciated the facts on record while deleting ₹ 83,90,690/- in respect of alleged purchases from M/s Saibaba Sales Corporation when as per the Sales Tax Department no firm in the name of M/s Saibaba Sales Corporation existed and when the assessee had failed to prove that the firm was genuine? [4] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 9,94,421/- being the difference in respect of computation of deduction u/s 35D and directing the Assessing Officer to verify allowability u/s 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded as income from other sources? [10] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in entertaining additional grounds relating to custom duty, when requirements for entertainment of additional grounds were not fulfilled? [11] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in setting aside the issue relating to deduction for custom duty paid of ₹ 82,54,455/- and included in the value of closing stock of imported raw materials and spares at ₹ 2,92,50,813/- as per the provisions of section 43(3) of the Act? 2. Heard Mrs.M.M.Bhatt, the learned standing counsel for the appellant revenue. 3. In relation to proposed question Nos.5, 8, and 10, the issue is identical insofar as the admiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate such contractors to carry out the work without any financial problems, advanced certain sums which were to be adjusted at the time of settlement of the final bill. On such advanced amounts, as per agreement between the parties, the assessee charged interest. According to revenue, the same was taxable under the head Income from other sources . 7.The Tribunal, after recording the facts, on which there is no dispute, came to the conclusion that the said amount was adjusted in the final bill so as to reduce the cost of the asset in the nature of plant and machinery and was, thus, receipt on capital account not liable to tax. The Tribunal has relied on the ratio of the Apex Court decision, as recorded in paragraph No.3.4 of the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than in the preceding years. The Tribunal has further taken note of the fact that the payment was made by account payee cheques against each bill and there was no evidence on record to show that such funds had come back to the assessee. After recording the aforesaid findings of fact, the Tribunal has applied the ratio of decision of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. M.K.Brothers, [1987] 163 ITR 249, to conclude that a similar issue dealing with similar nature of addition had been dealt with by this Court. Furthermore, the Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the assessee had made total purchases to the extent of ₹ 1,16,20,690/- from M/s Saibaba Sales Corporation, out of which, only purchases to the tune of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
