https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342680 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342680 Unexplained cash credit u/s.68 - Held that:- We noticed that assessee has provided copy of I.T. return, bank account no. etc of the parties who had contributed towards share capital of the assessee-company. The assessee had received total share capital of Rs. 2,73,51,600/- and the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 21,72,700/- u/s.68 of the Act in the case of the assessee on the basis of cash deposited in the bank account of 13 parties as stated above in this order. We find that Ld.AO has not conducted any enquiry to find out the source of above stated cash deposit in the bank account of the parties and Assessing Officer has also not initiated any proceedings to verify the source of cash deposit. Accordingly no further proceedings has been initiated to tax the unexplained cash deposit if any in the hand of the shareholders. Therefore, after considering the detailed findings of Ld.CIT(A), we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of Ld.CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee Interest attributable to the funds utilized for acquiring the capital assets - disallowance u/sec.36(1)(iii) - Held that:- Assessing Officer has stated that interest attributable to the funds utilized for acquiring fixed assets has not been capitalized by the assessee and he further held that assessee has also not proved the fund flow statement. We further noticed that the Ld.CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer had not identified capital borrowed for acquiring capital assets. We observed after perusal of the records that assessee had not furnished necessary break-up with the fund flow statement for reconciliation of funds used in acquiring capital assets. Therefore, we do not incline with the decision of Ld.CIT(A) and in the interest of justice we restore this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide a fresh after examination of the relevant details furnished by the assessee and after providing due opportunity to the assessee. Undervaluation of closing stock - assessee has not included in the value of closing stock amount of tax, duty and cess etc. actually paid or incurred by the assessee to bring the goods to the place of its location - Held that:- As noticed the contentions of the Ld.Counsel that the assessee was paying excise duty at concessional rate and it has not claimed benefit of CENVAT credit. We have considered the contentions of the Ld.Counsel that CENVAT benefit was not available to the assessee therefore enhancement in the value of closing stock on account of CENVAT was not warranted. We have also considered the findings of Ld.CIT(A) and the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Voltamp Transformers Ltd. v/s. CIT (2008 (4) TMI 518 - Gujarat High Court) that assessee was following exclusive method of accounting and the CENVAT was not debited or credited to the Profit and Loss account. Therefore, we uphold the order of Ld.CIT(A) on this issue. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 04 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530