TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 193
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the contention before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the amounts were paid within due dates and further the amounts were also paid within the year itself. Therefore, following the principles laid down by the jurisdictional High Court, the amounts paid within the grace period should have been allowed. Further the assessee also took recourse to the hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) for the proposition that since the amounts were paid within the financial year/before the filing of return itself, the amounts should be allowed. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) however, confirmed the same holding that there is no substance in the contentions. 3.1 After considering the rival submissions, we agree with the assessee's contentions. As seen from the chart prepared in the Assessing Officer's order, most of the payments were paid within the grace period itself or within the year itself. Even otherwise, the amounts were paid before filing the return of income in any case. Therefore, following the judicial principles on the issue established by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....supporting evidence. The assessee furnished the details informing that the said amounts were unrecoverable amounts and relied on the judgment of the hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of DIT (International Taxation) v. Oman International Bank (313 ITR 128)(Bom). The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the same on the reason that the assessee did not furnish any details. Learned counsel referred to the paper book (PB page 133) and replies given to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to submit that all the details have been furnished. Considering the same and also the fact that the amounts have been written off in the books of account, the principles laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 will apply. Accordingly Assessing Officer is directed to allow the amount. The ground is allowed. 6. Ground No. 4 pertains to the disallowance of depreciation on refinery of Rs. 16,96,774. The Assessing Officer noticed that the auditor in Schedule-II para 4 noted that the refinery of edible oil has remained discontinued during the year and management has not planned any refinery activity. After seeking explanation from the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s capital. There was a fire in the company's chemical plant at Pitampur on February 20, 2004. The company made its own assessment of damages requiring repairs/replacement expenses and lodged the claim and debited a sum to the insurance company of Rs. 1.51 crores. The insurance company appointed the surveyor who after detailed assessment restricted the claim to Rs. 1,26,35,274. After discussions, the assessee agreed for the claim at the reduced amount. Thereafter the insurance company further reduced the amount for various technical reasons and paid only an amount of Rs. 1,04,66,973. Therefore, the amount of difference between the agreed claim which was debited to the insurance company and received claim was treated as loss due to fire. The Assessing Officer treated the above loss as capital expenditure pertaining to the fixed assets, building and machinery and therefore, capital in nature. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) approved the same. 7.1 It was the contention of learned counsel that the loss pertaining to the factory building and plant and machinery is nothing but repairs allowable as per the provisions of sections 30 and 31 of the Income-tax Act. It was sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Assessing Officer for examination of the facts. If the amounts as claimed by the assessee are spent for the purpose of repairs and not claimed separately in profit and loss accounts but adjusted in the insurer's account, then short receipt from the insurance company gives rise to revenue loss. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the same after due verification as revenue expenditure. The ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Ground No. 6 pertain to the claim for devaluation of closing stock to an extent of Rs. 14,25,705. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has devalued its closing stock to Re. 1 as on March 31, 2005. The assessee explained that the company has brought forward certain slow and non-moving items in its inventory valued at Rs. 14,25,706 as on April 1, 2004 as the same remained unsold for the whole year, its written down value was reduced to Re. 1 as on March 31, 2005. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the assessee's contentions and held that these are contrary to the provisions of section 145A and accounting standards for valuing the inventory. Before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the assessee furnished the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee cannot sell the packing material as such and so the subsequent sales also cannot be furnished in the absence of its utilisation as the packing material in the production of its products. In view of this, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) wrongly considered the issue in disallowing the amount. The assessee relied on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Emersons Process Management India (P.) Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 3(1), Mumbai, 47 SOT 157 (Mum) UROand in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2006] 9 SOT 189 (Delhi) (URO). The above principles were accepted in the abovereferred co-ordinate Bench decisions and items of stock which have become obsolete or useless were allowed to be valued at a lesser price and the difference was allowed as a deduction. Since the assessee has not used the above packing material and has to be discarded off by way of destruction or sale as scraps, the assessee has rightly reduced the value ; therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the amount. Ground is allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. I.T.A. No. 8138....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aimed on the basis of self-serving vouchers. Several missing vouchers while several others bear incomplete narrations, etc. The Assessing Officer disallowed 20 per cent. of these expenses. I agree with the findings of the Assessing Officer. Since expenses are not properly vouched/verifiable ; the appellant has failed to discharge its onus. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is upheld. 2.4 These grounds of appeal are dismissed." 12. It was the submission of learned counsel that the assessee is a public limited company and has duly audited its accounts and all the vouchers are maintained and the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any defects or mistakes in the accounts and disallowed it on ad hoc basis which was also confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as per the order stated above. The learned Departmental representative supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 12.1 We agree with the contentions of the assessee. The assessee being a public limited company and has maintained books of account and audited, ad hoc disallowance per se does not arise. M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; Rs:75,000 (ii) Vehicle running and maintenance expenses Rs:1,00,000 (iii) Repair and maintenance expenses machinery Rs:8,98,385 (iv) Repair and maintenance expenses building Rs:96,252 (v) Repair and maintenance expenses electrical installation Rs:1,33,610 (vi) Incentive to stockists Rs:85,055 17. The findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the issue are extracted as under : "2.1 Out of the total telephone....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e orders. 18.1 We agree with the contentions of the assessee. The issues contested are same as in ground No. 1 in I.T.A. No. 8138/Mum/2011-assessment year 2006-07. For the reasons stated in ground No. 1 in the above appeal, here also we agree with the assessee's contentions and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the amount as claimed. The ground is considered allowed. 18.2 Ground No. 2 pertains to the disallowance of provident fund and employees' State insurance corporation of Rs. 2,92,520 and Rs. 35,136. As seen from the details extracted in the assessment order the amounts were paid within one month of due date but before filing the return of income. For the reasons stated against ground No. 1, I.T.A. No. 8136/Mum/2011, these amounts are allowable on the principles laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra). The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the amount. 20. Ground No. 3 pertains to the issue of disallowance of the entire amount paid towards purchase of software. The assessee purchased the software to an extent of Rs. 1,46,790 for its utilisation. The details of purchase was listed in the order. It capitalised the same to the ....