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 dismisses appeal, remands issues for fresh adjudication. Disallowance of interest and expenses under review.</h1> <h3>Smt. Taradevi Ratanlal Bafna, Prop. of R.C. Bafna Jewellers Versus JCIT, Range-1, Jalgaon And Vice-Versa</h3> Smt. Taradevi Ratanlal Bafna, Prop. of R.C. Bafna Jewellers Versus JCIT, Range-1, Jalgaon And Vice-Versa - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of interest.2. Disallowance of interest under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.3. Addition under Section 69B.4. Addition under Section 50C.5. Applicability of Section 28(iv).6. Disallowance of vehicle and shop expenses.7. Disallowance of packing material expenses.8. Disallowance of Kavi Sammelan expenses.9. Disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b).Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Interest:The first issue raised by the assessee pertains to the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 49,23,531/-, split into two segments: Rs. 8,10,106/- for diversion of funds for non-business purposes and Rs. 41,13,425/- under Section 36(1)(iii). The Tribunal noted the arguments of the assessee, who contended that the interest was for business purposes and should be allowable under Section 37. The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication, aligning with a previous Tribunal decision in a related case.2. Disallowance of Interest Under Section 14A read with Rule 8D:The second issue involves the disallowance of Rs. 17,41,441/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee argued that the investments were made from surplus funds and requested a remand to the AO. The Tribunal, agreeing with the assessee's counsel, remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication.3. Addition Under Section 69B:The third issue concerns the addition of Rs. 63,75,000/- under Section 69B due to a discrepancy between the amount recorded in the assessee’s books and a seized document. The Tribunal noted the assessee’s arguments, including the lack of opportunity to cross-examine the document’s author and the issue of double addition. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication, ensuring principles of natural justice are followed.4. Addition Under Section 50C:The fourth issue deals with the addition of Rs. 1,67,54,510/- under Section 50C. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition based on the DVO’s valuation, which was lower than the Sub Registrar’s value. However, the CIT(A) later rectified his order, reducing the addition to Rs. 34,50,311/-. The Tribunal noted various arguments, including the applicability of Section 45(3) and the nature of the property as stock-in-trade. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for comprehensive adjudication, considering all aspects and arguments presented.5. Applicability of Section 28(iv):The fifth issue pertains to the applicability of Section 28(iv) regarding a benefit received by the assessee from a firm in which she is a partner. The CIT(A) had directed the AO to take follow-up action under Section 28(iv). The Tribunal found the direction superfluous and unwarranted, noting that the issue requires fresh consideration by the AO. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for a detailed examination.6. Disallowance of Vehicle and Shop Expenses:The sixth issue involves the disallowance of Rs. 10,87,262/- on vehicle expenses and Rs. 1,00,000/- on shop expenses. The AO had disallowed 50% of the vehicle expenses due to lack of log books and personal use, while the CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to Rs. 3,00,000/-. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, finding it fair and reasonable. Regarding shop expenses, the CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that such expenses are common in a jewelry showroom. The Tribunal upheld this decision as well.7. Disallowance of Packing Material Expenses:The seventh issue concerns the disallowance of Rs. 15,00,000/- on packing material expenses. The AO made an ad-hoc disallowance, while the CIT(A) deleted it, noting the lack of corroborative evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, agreeing that the disallowance was based on assumptions.8. Disallowance of Kavi Sammelan Expenses:The eighth issue involves the disallowance of Rs. 2,15,673/- on Kavi Sammelan expenses. The AO disallowed the expenses as non-business expenditure, while the CIT(A) viewed it as advertisement expenditure and deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, finding it a plausible view.9. Disallowance Under Section 40A(2)(b):The ninth issue pertains to the disallowance of Rs. 2,55,550/- under Section 40A(2)(b) for salary and bonus paid to employees. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the AO did not prove the payments as unreasonable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed ITA No.447/PUN/2015 filed by the assessee and partly allowed ITA No.732/PUN/2013 and ITA No.904/PUN/2013 for statistical purposes, remanding several issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
TaxTMI 