9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is submitted that the same is offered to tax as and when it is received, in the light of the decision of the CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. [ 2013 (10) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT] . The explanation offered by the assessee had not been controverted by the lower authorities but merely rejected the same without giving valid reasons. On the face of the explanation in respect of Item Nos.1 to 4, no addition is warranted. The disputed tax liability paid under protest does not constitute the income in the hands of the assessee. However, the AO had not gone into the issue in detail by undertaking the due process of verification with the evidence. Similarly, as regards to the duty drawback AO had not undertaken the exercise of verifying whether the due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd., duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, which is engaged in the business of erection & selling of power transmission towers. The return of income for the AY 2007-08 was filed on 31.10.2007 declaring 'NIL' income and the same was revised declaring same income. Against the said return of income, the assessment came to be completed by the AO vide an order dated 24.12.2009 passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at 'Nil' income after set off unabsorbed loss of earlier years to an extent of ₹ 42,41,04,258/-. Subsequently, the assessment was re-opened u/s.148 by issuing notice dated 28.03.2012, on the ground that the duty drawback receivables of ₹ 1,81,98,949/- was not offered to tax, while computing the tax liabi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for doubtful advance of ₹ 3.25 Crs. It is submitted that the provision is debited to P&L A/c and reduced from the sundry debtors, loans and advances which constitutes write off in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT reported in 323 ITR 166. He also submitted that the provisions netted of against the assets cannot be added to the book profit for the purpose of computing tax liability in the light of the above decision. On the other hand, the Ld.Sr.DR placed reliance on the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We heard the rival contentions and perused the materials placed on record. 6. Ground No.2 challenges the validity of the initiation of reassessment proceedings. These grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Item Nos.1 to 4, no addition is warranted. The disputed tax liability paid under protest does not constitute the income in the hands of the assessee. However, the AO had not gone into the issue in detail by undertaking the due process of verification with the evidence. Similarly, as regards to the duty drawback of ₹ 1,09,56,842/-, the AO had not undertaken the exercise of verifying whether the due drawback had accrued to the assessee or not. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the issue may be restored to the file of the AO for de novo assessment on this issue. 9. As regards, the addition of provision for disputed claims to the book profit for the purpose of computing tax liability u/s.115JB, from the details on re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
