9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue is dismissed. Addition on account of Rebates and write offs - Held that:- The amount receivable from debtors was, admittedly, written off during the year for which necessary details were also produced before the ld.CIT(A) and, in turn, before the Assessing Officer in remand proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. vs. CIT [2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT] has held that claim for bad debt has to be allowed on a mere write off and there is no further need to prove that the amount of debt became bad during the year. In view of the above binding precedent, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. Addition of sales-tax along with surcharge and such sales-tax paid during the year was d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. Meena, Sr. DR ORDER PER BENCH: This batch of three appeals comprises of two cross appeals for the assessment year 2009-10 and one appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2011-12. For the sake of convenience, we have clubbed these appeals for disposal. Assessment Year 2009-10 2. The only issue raised by the assessee in its appeal is against the taxability of commission received in advance in respect of purchases accounted for in the next financial year. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of this ground are that the assessee declared advance commission received amounting to ₹ 37.75 lac which was not offered for tax. The Assessing Officer opined that since the assessee was following mercantile sys ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer on account of Rebates and write offs. The facts apropos this ground are that the assessee debited a sum of ₹ 19,53,086/- under the head Rebate and written off expenses. In the absence of the assessee furnishing necessary details, the Assessing Officer made an addition for this sum. The assessee contended before the ld. CIT(A) that the amount of ₹ 19,53,086/-, except for a sum of ₹ 1,17,556/-, represented written off balances of debtors. A detail of such debtors written off was furnished to the ld. CIT(A), who sent the same to the Assessing Officer for remand report. Considering the remand report, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition to the extent of ₹ 18,35,530/-. Remaining addition of ₹ 1,17,556/- was up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the sales-tax authorities which was paid during the year and challans of such payment were also produced. He, therefore, held that it was a payment of sales-tax and not any penalty etc., which was allowable in the year of payment in terms of section 43B of the Act. 8. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, we find that the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by noticing that ₹ 11,27,955/- was the amount of sales-tax paid by the assessee during the year in respect of sales-tax assessments completed and such amount was not of a penal nature. The ld. DR could not controvert the findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A) with any cogent evidence. Since the said sum represented the payment of sales-tax ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
