9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lot, the license for the said plot was issued for storing of grains and pulses and the assessee was unable to justify that the same was used for the assessee s business which is creation, production and development of programs and other software media which can be broadcasted through the audio visual medium vide television. Assessee has failed to substantiate that the said plot was not used for the purpose mentioned in the license. On this observation, the lower authorities has disallowed as alleged to be paid by the assessee towards property tax for the Dock Yard Godown. It is observed that the assessee has neither produced evidences before the lower authorities nor before us to substantiate its claim of expenses paid towards property taxes. We find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, ground no.2 raised by the assessee is dismissed. Depreciation claimed on addition of new assets @ 15% flat and disallowing balance depreciation and depreciation on software restricted to 25% instead of 60% - HELD THAT:- The assessee had claimed depreciation on addition of Rs.1,99,83,359/- for more than 180 days @ 60% and that the assessee has furnished bills for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmission that the import transaction has been disclosed in the books of accounts of the assessee and was, therefore, treated as unexplained expenditure . The assessee has failed to substantiate its claim, neither before the first appellate authority nor before us, there was no evidence produced by the assessee, pertaining to the breakup of the impugned expenses - no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Hence, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed. - ITA Nos. 7115 & 7116/Mum/2019 - - - Dated:- 15-12-2022 - SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT , AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL , JM Appellant by : None Respondent by : Smt. Usha Gaikwad ORDER Per Kavitha Rajagopal , J. M. : These appeals are filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC for short), passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year ( A.Y. for short) 2015-16. 2. As there was no representation on behalf of the assessee inspite of several opportunities, we proceed to decide the appeal by hearing the ld. Departmental Represen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The assessee filed its return of income dated 30.09.2014, declaring total income of Rs.20,03,880/-. The assessee s case was selected for scrutiny and assessment order u/s. 143(3) dated 26.12.2016 was passed, determining total income of Rs.2,41,71,180/-, by making the several additions/disallowances. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the impugned addition. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the material available on record. In the first ground of appeal, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs.13,94,716/- being prior period expenses (AMC) by considering the same as expenses , pertaining to F.Y. 2012-13. It is observed that the A.O. has disallowed the said sum pertaining to annual maintenance purpose (AMC) as expenses pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 and not to the impugned year. The assessee contended that the impugned amount though was paid in F.Y. 2012-13, it was not claimed as expenditure in that year and has been shown as current asset in the balance sheet of the company as on 31.03.2013. The assessee further c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and pulses and the assessee was unable to justify that the same was used for the assessee s business which is creation, production and development of programs and other software media which can be broadcasted through the audio visual medium vide television. The assessee has failed to substantiate that the said plot was not used for the purpose mentioned in the license. On this observation, the lower authorities has disallowed Rs.1,90,302/- alleged to be paid by the assessee towards property tax for the Dock Yard Godown. It is observed that the assessee has neither produced evidences before the lower authorities nor before us to substantiate its claim of expenses paid towards property taxes. 11. From the above observation, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, ground no.2 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 12. Ground Nos. 3 and 4 pertains to the depreciation claimed on addition of new assets to Rs.37,61,496/- @ 15% flat and disallowing balance depreciation of Rs.1,22,31,226/- and depreciation on software restricted to 25% instead of 60%. It is observed that the assessee has made addition on fixed assets namely computer and software, furniture a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce on account of Travelling and Conveyance from Rs.7,52,820/- to Rs.35,54,977/- b) Rs.11,33,350/- on account of Electricity Charges. c) Increasing disallowance on account of Miscellaneous Expenses to Rs.14,42,274/- d) Rs.1,31,837/- on account of Security charges e) Increasing disallowance on account of Manpower Deputation Charges from Rs.3,42,870/- to Rs.4,88,584/-. 16. The A.O. has disallowed the above mentioned expenses on the ground that the assessee has failed to furnish documentary evidences in supports of its claim that the above mentioned expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 17. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the assessee. 18. Aggrieved by this, the assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the disallowance of the impugned expenses. It is observed that the assessee has neither filed any evidences either by way of documentary evidence or otherwise neither before the lower authorities nor before us. On this observation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the lower authorities. Hence, ground no. 6 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 19. Ground nos. 7, 8 9 being genera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
