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 remands interest disallowance issue, reduces bogus purchase addition percentage</h1> <h3>M/s. Vinay Unique Construction P. Ltd., Formerly Vinay Unique Construction Co. Versus ACIT 15 (3), Mumbai</h3> M/s. Vinay Unique Construction P. Ltd., Formerly Vinay Unique Construction Co. Versus ACIT 15 (3), Mumbai - TMI Issues:1. Disallowance of interest under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.2. Addition of amount on account of bogus purchases.Analysis:Issue 1: Disallowance of interest under section 40(a)(ia) of the ActThe appellant, a company engaged in the business of builder and developer, challenged the disallowance of &8377;49,18,527 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for not deducting tax at source on interest paid to Non-Banking Financial Companies. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount, which was upheld by the First Appellate Authority. The appellant argued that the recipients included the interest in their taxable income, invoking the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) with retrospective application. The Tribunal agreed that the second proviso applies retrospectively but emphasized the need for the appellant to prove that recipients declared the amount as income. As factual verification was necessary, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for further examination, with the direction that if the appellant's claim is substantiated, no disallowance should be made.Issue 2: Addition of amount on account of bogus purchasesThe Assessing Officer found purchases of &8377;50,28,053 from certain parties to be bogus, treated them as accommodation bills, and added the amount to the appellant's income. The Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed with the full addition, considering only the profit element embedded in the purchases as doubtful. A 20% disallowance was imposed, which the appellant argued was excessive. The Tribunal noted the nature of the appellant's business as a builder and developer and reduced the disallowance to 12.5% in line with consistent tribunal decisions in similar cases. The decision was specific to the facts of the appeal. Consequently, the appellant's appeal was partly allowed.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of disallowance of interest under section 40(a)(ia) and addition of amount on account of bogus purchases, providing detailed reasoning and specific directions for further examination by the Assessing Officer, and adjusting the disallowance percentage based on the nature of the appellant's business.
TaxTMI 