9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - made by the AO u/s. 14A without appreciating the departmental stand in the cases of M/s. Cheminvest Ltd. and M/s. Holcim India Ltd. which clarified the disallowance of expenditure u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D in the absence of exempt income. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the purchase of computers and its part as revenue in nature and deleting addition of Rs. 1,85,592/- which was held by the AO as capital in nature ignoring the fact that purchase of new computers is not allowable as revenue expenditure. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs. 10,24,849/- made by the AO on account of disallowanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alance sheet of GCPL for the impugned assessment year. 5. An agreement has been entered between GLFPL and GCPL for purchase of property of the assessee vide "Agreement of Sale" dated 28.07.2011. GCPL could not fulfill the conditions prescribed in the agreement which included getting the property pledged to the bank to be released within 18 months of the execution of the agreement. Therefore, GLFPL decided not to purchase the aforesaid property and cancelled the agreement vide deed of cancellation dated 21.12.2012. 6. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer treated the advance received u/s. 2(22)(e) holding, * That GLFPL has granted loans of Rs. 15,00,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,00,000/- on 30.07.2011 to M/s. Genesis Colours P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non-notarization or registration of the document. The revenue need to prove that the documents have been fabricated or made believe to bring the amount to tax u/s. 2(22)(e). The burden of proof laid on the department has not been discharged. The commercial transaction between the related company do not necessarily attract the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) unless convincingly proved that the transactions were not commercial in nature by bringing appropriate material on record and with proper investigation. In the present case, there is no prima facie reason to dispute that GLFPL intended to purchase the space from the assessee and the assessee failed to release the mortgage which consequently led to cancellation of the transaction and retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
