9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 893X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that:- As these expenses are incurred by the assessee are capital in nature being incurred to expand the capital base of the company and hence, disallowable. Therefore, additions to that extent stand confirmed. Similarly, the Ld. Sales Tax Penal charges Allowability - Held that:- Since Ld. AR could not produce any documentary evidence to prove the same, the matter being factual one, is being restored to Ld. AO for the limited purpose of verification of the stated fact as contended by Ld. AR Advances written off - write-off of certain advances given to various employees to incur expenditure on tours, miscellaneous advances etc. and write-off of earnest money deposits while making tender / bid to a potential customer - Held that:- We find that these expenses are routine business expenditure for the assessee and incurred to ensure day-to-day running of assessee’s business and therefore, allowable Commission on warranty income - as contended that the assessee undertakes the warranty of the equipment supplied by the foreign group companies - Held that:- It is uncontroverted fact that the assessee is consistently following the same method of accounting for recognition of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t corporate assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing, installation and sale of medical equipments was assessed for impugned AY on 12/12/2008 u/s 143(3) at ₹ 41.90 Lacs which was same as returned income. Subsequently, Ld. CIT, vide order dated 28/03/2011 invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 directed Ld. AO to frame fresh assessment after considering certain points as noted by Ld. CIT in the impugned order. The revisional jurisdiction, as evident from the impugned order, stems out of certain reporting made in Tax Audit Report of the assessee where it was noted that the following items, though required to be added back to the income of the assessee, were omitted to be added back and hence, the quantum assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore, required revision u/s 263:- No. Item Amount (Rs.) 1. Share Issue Expenses 1,95,120/- 2. Sales Tax Penal Charges 80,740/- 3. Provision for Gratu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e items were, at all, made during quantum assessment proceedings and they same were duly noted by Ld. AO. Hence, on the point of jurisdiction, we find ourselves in agreement with the revenue that the quantum assessment order rightly called for invocation of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by Ld. CIT. Therefore, finding the same in order, we dismiss assessee s appeal. ITA 3550/Mum/2012 3.1 By way of this appeal, the assessee has contested the quantum additions made by Ld. AO in consequential order passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 263 on 16/12/2011 and as sustained by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-22 [CIT(A)] , Appeal No.CIT(A)-22/ACIT- 10(3)/IT.429/2011-12 dated 02/03/2012. 3.2 Consequent to invocation of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263, the assessee has been saddled with aggregate additions of ₹ 90,94,642/- against six items which was further contested without any success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 02/03/2012. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3.3 The Ld. Counsel for Assessee, taking us through various documents placed in the paper-book contested the additions whereas Ld. DR defended the stand of lowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by the assessee. The Ld.AR further contended that the assessee is consistently following the same method of accounting over the past several years and the same has also been accepted by the revenue. Our attention is further drawn to a vital fact that the assessee, following the same method of accounting, has already offered the said income in subsequent assessment years and hence, double taxation of the same amount was against the principle of natural justice and hence, not permissible. 4.4 Upon perusal, we find that it is uncontroverted fact that the assessee is consistently following the same method of accounting for recognition of commission income over past several years. A perusal of detailed working of the same as placed on Page No. 151 reveals that the said income has been apportioned on the basis of number of expired and unexpired warranty days, which lends strength to various arguments of Ld. AR. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the issue, the impugned addition stands deleted subject to verification of the fact by Ld. AO that this impugned income has been offered by the assessee to tax in subsequent years. Accordingly, the matter is restored back to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
