9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1922X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowance on estimated basis is not tenable. There is no need to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A). Addition on account of incorrect claim of depreciation on commercial vehicle - whether these vehicles were acquired between 01.10.1998 and 31.03.1999 and put to use before 01.04.1999 as per the provision of third provision to section 31(1) - HELD THAT:- The perusal of the records show that the assessee furnished all the relevant documents before the Assessing Officer. There is no additional evidence given by the assessee before the CIT(A). CIT(A) rightly held that the Assessing Officer wrongly disallowed a sum of 1,71,929/- depreciation on commercial vehicle. As per 3rd proviso to clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the Act, the assessee has rightly claimed the depreciation @40%. Thus, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Addition on account of incorrect claim of cost of acquisition of shares while computing Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares - HELD THAT:- The persual of the records show that the assessee furnished all the relevant documents before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, there is no additional evidence given by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... put to use before 01.04.1999 as per the provision of third provision to section 31(1) of the IT Act. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,71,929/- made on account of incorrect claim of depreciation on the basis of additional evidence submitted by the assessee without providing opportunity of rebuttal to the AO under the rule 46 A. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 36,600/- made on account of incorrect claim of cost of acquisition of shares while computing Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 36,600/- made on account of incorrect claim of cost of acquisition of shares while computing Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares on the basis of additional evidence submitted by the j assessee without providing opportunity of rebuttal to the AO under rule46A. 8. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 48,28,460/- made on Long Term Capital Gain completely on the basis of submission of the assessee | and ignoring the reasons mentioned in the assessment order. 9. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting evidence in contravention of judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. DR submitted that the CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 81,166/- on account of personal use. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer rightly disallowed ₹ 1,62,332/- which is 10% of expenses on vehicle maintenance, sales promotion, staff welfare, travelling and conveyance and telephone. The Ld. AR relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The CIT(A) held that the element of personal use cannot be completely rules out, therefore, he sustain the disallowance to the tune of ₹ 81,166/-. It can be seen that the Assessing Officer made disallowance only on the estimated basis. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Ground No. 1 of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 7. As relates to Ground No. 2, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 27,308/- made on account of Diwali expenses completely ignoring the fact that the onus was on assessee to establish that it was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The Ld. AR relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d before the Assessing Officer. 13. We have heard both the parties and perused all the records. The persula of the records show that the assessee furnished all the relevant documents before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, there is no additional evidence given by the assessee before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) rightly held that the Assessing Officer wrongly disallowed a sum of ₹ 1,71,929/- depreciation on commercial vehicle. As per 3rd proviso to clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the Act, the assessee has rightly claimed the depreciation @40%. Thus, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Ground No. 4 & 5 are dismissed. 14. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 36,600/- made on account of incorrect claim of cost of acquisition of shares while computing Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 36,600/- made on account of incorrect claim of cost of acquisition of shares while computing Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares on the basis of additional evidence submitted by the assessee without providing opportunity of rebut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
