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>Revenue appeal dismissed, assessee's cross-objection allowed, confirming CIT(A)'s decisions.</h1> <h3>DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. Versus BRAHMAPUTRA STEELS (P) LTD.</h3> DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. Versus BRAHMAPUTRA STEELS (P) LTD. - TTJ 076, 447, Issues Involved:1. Addition made in respect of purchase of raw materials.2. Deletion of addition in respect of contribution towards share capital.3. Direction of CIT(A) regarding W.D.V. computation.4. Direction of CIT(A) for computation of book profit u/s 115J.Summary:1. Addition Made in Respect of Purchase of Raw Materials:The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,77,36,885 made by the AO disallowing purchases from 17 parties. The AO's decision was based on the previous year's assessment where similar purchases were disallowed. The assessee argued that the purchases were genuine, supported by detailed records and payments made via cheques or bank drafts. The Tribunal noted that the assessee maintained comprehensive records as per Central Excise Rules, which were periodically verified by excise authorities. The Tribunal found the AO's rejection of purchases unreasonable, especially since the sales were accepted. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the genuineness of the transactions and rejecting the AO's addition.2. Deletion of Addition in Respect of Contribution Towards Share Capital:The Revenue contested the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 5 lakhs made u/s 68 for contributions towards share capital. The assessee provided evidence of the transactions, including confirmations from the contributing companies and their audited balance sheets. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd., which held that share capital contributions cannot be treated as undisclosed income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the contributions were genuine and could not be added as income.3. Direction of CIT(A) Regarding W.D.V. Computation:The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s direction to compute W.D.V. based on the appeal effect order for the previous year. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s direction and upheld the order.4. Direction of CIT(A) for Computation of Book Profit u/s 115J:The Revenue objected to the CIT(A)'s direction for proper adjustments as per s. 115J. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s directions appropriate and upheld the order, noting no valid grievance from the Revenue.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's cross-objection, confirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on all points.
TaxTMI 