TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds deletion of additions, dismisses assessee's cross-objection on TDS non-deduction</h1> <h3>Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Versus M/s Navjivan Synthetics,</h3> Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Versus M/s Navjivan Synthetics, - [2012] 20 ITR 712 Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition on account of work in progress.2. Deletion of addition on account of bogus purchases.3. Deletion of addition on account of rebate and discount.4. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on transportation charges.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Work in Progress:The Revenue contested the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,24,012/- made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) on account of work in progress. The A.O. had observed that the assessee did not show the closing stock of work in progress, which included expenses on color, chemical, wages, power, and fuel. The A.O. added this to the income without considering the opening stock of work in progress. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, referencing the Delhi High Court judgment in CIT Vs. Mahavir Aluminum Ltd., which mandates adjustments in both opening and closing stocks when any inventory valuation adjustment is made. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no merit in the Revenue's appeal, as the A.O. failed to consider the opening stock of work in progress.2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Bogus Purchases:The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 4,45,327/- added by the A.O. on account of bogus purchases from M/s Agrawal Enterprises. The A.O. noted discrepancies between the assessee's ledger and the confirmation from M/s Agrawal Enterprises. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the assessee provided delivery challans, weighing slips, and payment proofs, indicating genuine purchases. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s findings were not controverted by the Revenue with substantial evidence and upheld the deletion of the addition.3. Deletion of Addition on Account of Rebate and Discount:The A.O. had also added Rs. 1,10,125/- on account of rebate and discount, which was reflected in M/s Agrawal Enterprises' confirmation but contested by the assessee. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, noting that such a large rebate and discount were unlikely given the value of the material. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), finding the assessee's contention plausible and dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this ground.4. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for Non-Deduction of TDS on Transportation Charges:The assessee's cross-objection involved the disallowance of Rs. 2,64,101/- under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on transportation charges. The A.O. observed that the assessee was liable to deduct TDS as the aggregate payments to transporters exceeded the threshold limit. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, rejecting the assessee's argument that there was no contract with the transporters and that individual payments did not exceed the limit. The Tribunal concurred, noting that the aggregate payments exceeded the prescribed limit and the assessee was responsible for paying the transporters, thus liable to deduct TDS under section 194C.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the deletion of additions on account of work in progress, bogus purchases, and rebate and discount. It also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection concerning the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on transportation charges.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
