9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 622X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wages (Admn.) amounting to Rs.72,63,731/-, power consumption amounting to Rs.19,82,701/-, stationary amounting to Rs.11,50,361/- which are clearly incurred for both SEZ Unit & non-SEZ Unit. 2) The Ld. Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals)-XIV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest of Rs.3,19,556/- made u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act when Assessee failed to discharge its onus that the advances to its subsidiaries were made for the purpose of its own business. 3) The Ld. Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals)-XIV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,00,000/- made on account of misc. expenses. 4) The Ld. Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals)-XIV, Ahmedabad Ms erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,23,890/- made on account of license fees 5) The Ld. Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals)-XIV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the additions of Rs.1,77,861/- & Rs.2,32,065/- made on account of vehicle expenses & travelling expenses, respectively. 6) The Ld. Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals)-XIV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the additions of Rs.1,61 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 10A of the Act. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee did not furnish any complete Form 56FF as specifically mentioned in Rule 16DD of the Income Tax Rules. The Assessing Officer also pointed out various defects of not fulfilling the conditions prescribed under Section 10A of the Act and, therefore, held that the assessee is not eligible for any deduction under Section 10A of the Act. The Assessing Officer further made following disallowances: - Total income as per return of income 1,27,99,512/- Add: Additions/Disallowables as discussed above 1 Disallowance u/s.10A 1,33,37,787 2 Interest Disallowance u/s.36(1)(iii) 3,19,556 3 Miscellaneous Expenses 1,00,000 4 License Fee 1,23,890 5 Disallowance out of vehicle expenses 1,77,861 6 Disallowance out of Travelling expenses 2,32,065 7 Provision of warranty 8,50,876 8 Disallowance of Donation 2,417 9 Disallowance of interest on TDS 34,146 10 Disallowance of Bonus and Leave Encashment u/s.43B 6,14,958 11 Disallowance of Provision for Excise Duty u/s.43B 2,96,220 12 Disallowance of interest towards China Project 10,37,451 13 Disallowance of prepaid I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Officer at the remand stage. It is clearly stated in the letter dated 05.09.2013 by the assessee that the assessee received the amount of Rs.1,71,73,667/- and hence no deduction under Section 10A of the Act was claimed in the revised Form No.56F. Thus, the details were properly submitted before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). The Ld. A.R. further submitted that this is the 6th year of assessment and 50% of deduction under Section 10A of the Act is applicable to the assessee. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has given categorical finding in paragraph no.5.2 of the order that the assessee in the revised Form No.56A has taken the profit from SEZ Unit at Rs.1,33,37,787/- which was reduced by the expenditure related to Electricity, Sundry Balance and depreciation of patent. The assessee already admitted and the Assessing Officer in remand report also verified that as per the corrected Form No.56F the eligible profit of SEZ unit was of Rs.1,33,37,787/- excluding the amount of Rs.1,71,73,667/- where no bank realisation certificate is there on record on this profit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot make adhoc disallowance. There is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Hence, ground no.3 of Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 17. As regards ground no.4 relating to addition of Rs.1,23,890/- made on account of licence fees, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the CIT(A) never asked any comments in the remand report from the Assessing Officer on this issue. Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order. 18. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the payments were made on monthly basis and the same is in the nature of revenue and, therefore, addition on account of licence fees is totally uncalled for by the Assessing Officer. 19. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the order of CIT(A) 20. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. The Assessing Officer has totally ignored the factual aspect of payment of Licence Fees which was for the purpose of business and, therefore, revenue in nature. The payments were made on monthly basis and these facts were not controverted by the revenue. The CIT(A) has rightly deleted this addition and there is no need to interfere with the observations of the CIT(A). Hence, ground no.4 of the Revenue's appeal is dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order. 28. The Ld. A.R relied upon the order of CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee was consistently claiming insurance on payment basis and, therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the said disallowance. 29. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. From the perusal of records, it can be seen that the assessee is claiming insurance on payment basis consistently and in previous years the Assessing Officer has not disallowed this claim. The CIT(A) has given detailed finding and there is no need to interfere with the same. Ground no.7 of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 30 As regards to Ground no.8 relating to disallowance of Rs.20,26,491/- made under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee has not given any evidence before the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the onus was not discharged by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. 31. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the said disallowance is on presumption basis and no comparison was found by the Assessing Officer. In fact, all the evidences before the CIT(A) and in remand report the Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the deletion is not just and proper on behalf of the CIT(A) as such amount did not satisfy the precondition laid down under Section 36(2) of the Act. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order. 41. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 42. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the advance to employees and credit note received for inferior quality of goods sold were neither received in current A.Y. nor in subsequent A.Y. and it was rightly written off by the assessee. The said Sundry Balance was allowable as business expenses and Excise Duty added in opening stock of next year was also on record before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has rightly deleted this disallowance. Hence, ground no.11 of Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 43. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being ITA No.496/Ahd/2014 is dismissed. 44. As regards ITA No.1431/Ahd/2017, the same is filed by the assessee in respect of levy of penalty of Rs.29,86,828/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act related to the claim in respect of deduction under Section 10A of the Act at 100% whereas the assessment year in question i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
