Forum
Read and express views
× Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India

These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.

05-09-2019, Kapsons Agencies, Section 36(1)(iii), 40(a)(ia), Tribunal Chandigarh

  • amit
  • amit's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
1 week 1 day ago #10723 by amit
Section - 36(1)(iii), 40(a)(ia)
Order Date - 05-09-2019
Favouring - Revenue
Court - Tribunal Chandigarh
Appellant - Kapsons Agencies P.ltd.
Respondent - ACIT
Justice - DIVA SINGH, JM & ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM
Citation - 919Taxpundit52
Appeal No. - ITA No. 1012/CHD/2017
Asstt. Year - 2012-13

Order

PER : DIVA SINGH

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the correctness of the order dated 07.03.2017 of CIT(A)-1 Chand garh pertaining to 2012-13 assessment year is assailed on the following grounds :

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is both against facts and erroneous in law .

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned C\T(A) has erred , both on facts and in law in having confirmed the addition of Rs.48,128/-- made to the income of the appellant being the difference in the amounts of receipt as per form No. 26AS and as accounted for in the books of accounts of the appellant.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT{A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the disallowance of an amount of Rs 93,225/- under section 36(1)(iii) being the amount of interest paid on bank loan for acquiring assets not put to use in the year under reference .

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the disallowance of an amount of Rs 7,40,819/-under section 36(1)(iii)being the amount of interest paid on loans that should have been capitalized on capital work in progress in the hands of the appellant at the end of the year .Further the CIT(A) has also erred in having confirmed that the above interest should have been disallowed @ 15 % which was being paid to the Directors on unsecured loans Instead of 13% paid to bank.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both tin facts and in law, in confirming the disallowance of an amount of Rs 6016/-under section 36(1 )(iii) being the amount of interest paid on acquiring assets not put to use in the year under reference.

6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in having confirmed the allowance of depreciation on electrical installations and fittings at 10% instead of 15% as claimed by the appellant thereby confirming an addition of Rs. 8,04,342/-to the Income of the appellant.

7. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in having confirmed disallowance of an amount of Rs. 23,46,570/- being the amount of expenditure incurred on foreign travel of the Directors by treating the same as non business expenditure,

8. (i) On the facts and circumsta ces of the case, the CIT (Appeals) has erred in having confirmed an addition of Rs 26,37,466/- being the expenditure incurred by the appellant towards packing material by holding that as the expenditure incurred related to earlier assessment year, the same could not be allowed in the year under reference as the appellant was following mercantile system of accounting.

(ii) In any case, the appeal of the appellant for the earlier assessment year was simultaneously being disposed off by the learned CIT(A), necessary directions should have been issued for the allowability of the same in the preceding assessment year.

9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in having confirmed disallowance of an amount of Rs. 1,53,562/- made by the Assessing Officer by taking resort to the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) by holding that as no TDS was deducted out of the amount paid towards summer booking expenses, the same was not an allowable expenditure.

10.The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal before the same are heard and disposed off.

2. The ld. AR right at the outset invited attention to application dated 18.03.2019 and submitted that the assessee does not wish to press ground No. 3 and prays for permission to withdraw the said ground. After hearing the ld. Sr.DR permission to withdraw the ground granted. Ground No. 3 dismissed as not pressed..

3. Addressing the issues arising in the present appeal, it was the submission of the ld. AR that more or less, the arguments advanced in the group of appeals pertaining to 2010-11 to 2-13-14 assessment years in ITA 1010/CHD/2017 heard on 18.07.2019 would address the issues arising in the present appeal. It was submitted that since facts remain the same, no new arguments need to be advanced. In the said background, attention was invited to ground Nos. 1 and 10 raised in the present appeal. These grounds, it was submitted were general in nature and required no specific adjudication.

4. Inviting attention to ground No. 2 it was submitted that the issue had arisen in identical ground No. 2 in ITA 1013/CHD/2017 (2013-14 assessment year) heard on 18.07.2019 wherein the issue had been agreed to be remanded for verification. Similar direction was sought in the present appeal also. Referring to the record, it was submitted that there was a difference in the amounts of receipt as per form No. 26AS and as accounted for in the books of account of the assessee. In the facts of the present

Click to view and download Full Free Judgement of Kapsons Agencies P.ltd. vs. ACIT

Unable to display Google Map.




Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.104 seconds

If You Appreciate What We Do Here On TaxPundit, You Should Consider:

We are thankful for your never ending support.

Latest Analysis - High Courts

PCIT vs. Sahara States Gorakhpur

PCIT vs. Sahara States Gorakhpur

PCIT vs. Sahara States Gorakhpur Read More
GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT Read More
Jugender Singh Yadav vs. PCIT

Jugender Singh Yadav vs. PCIT

Jugender Singh Yadav vs. PCIT Read More
ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs PCIT

ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs PCIT

ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs PCIT Read More
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41

Forum Features

Latest Case Laws
Latest Case Laws are instantly updated in the Forum into their respective section
Latest from CBDT
Latest Circulars, Notifications, Orders etc. from CBDT is updated in the Forum
Ask Experts
You can ask questions to the community
Support
Support queries are either replied via mail or in the Forum so that others can be benefited
Press Releases
Latest Press Notes and Press Releases are updated in the Forum
Connect with Members
You can connect with our community members by replying to their queries

Recommended Articles

 

SITE INFORMATION

All content herein is the copyright of Taxpundit. No images, text, or any other content may be, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of Taxpundit.

All Rights Reserved. All Content Copyright.

Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest developments and special offers!

Company Master Data Since 1900. More than 1.75 Million Records. Register/Login to get FREE access. Read more
Toggle Bar