9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nation for its failure to produce the bills in support of its explanation. Inability to produce the bills in support of expenditure would not by itself mean that claim was not an unlawful one. There is no adverse comment of the Statutory Auditors of the assessee company, pointed out by AO. Just because assessee preferred a claim which was not found acceptable by the AO, would not mean that claim was not a bonafide or was based on inaccurate particulars. CIT (Appeals) in our opinion had rightly relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Reliance Petro Products Ltd (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ) - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.14/Mds/2017 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2018 - Shri Abraham P. George, Accountan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 100% depreciation. However, ld. Assessing Officer was of the opinion that assessee had in its books of accounts rightly treated the expenditure to result in intangible asset considering Accounting Standard 26 of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. However, according to him, such expenditure was eligible for depreciation at the rate of 25% only. Ld. Assessing Officer also noted that assessee could not produce any bills in support of the claim such expenditure as well as the expenditure on certain other assets aggregating to G5,01,389/-. He recomputed the depreciation claimed by the assessee, on these lines and such recomputation, resulted in an effective disallowance of ₹ 1,85,67,205/-. It seems assessee did not prefe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eliance Petro Products Ltd, 322 ITR 158, held that preferring an incorrect claim by itself would not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also relied on the judgment of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Cholamandalam Investment Finance Co. Ltd, 364 ITR 680. 5. Now before us, the ld. Departmental Representative strongly assailing the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) submitted that if the ld. Assessing Officer had failed to detect the unlawful claim during the course of assessment proceeding, assessee would have been enriched by the higher claim of depreciation. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, assessee could not produce bills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in support of expenditure would not by itself mean that claim was not an unlawful one. There is no adverse comment of the Statutory Auditors of the assessee company, pointed out by the ld. Assessing Officer. Just because assessee preferred a claim which was not found acceptable by the ld. Assessing Officer, would not mean that claim was not a bonafide or was based on inaccurate particulars. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in our opinion had rightly relied on the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Reliance Petro Products Ltd (supra) and also that of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cholamandalam Investment Finance Co. Ltd (supra). The effect of the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
