TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 354
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 66,700/- ) is as follows :- Month Amount (Rs.) Due Date Date of Payment April 19,086 15.05.2007 24.5.2007 May 19,671 15.06.2007 18.6.2007 August 19,863 15.09.2007 20.9.2007 Total 58,620 Casting error by AO 66,700 2.1 Hence, it is submitted that the payment has been made within due date of filing of return of income i.e. 30/9/2008 and there is a judgment in favour of the assessee in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transport (368 ITR 749) (Bom.) wherein, it was held that when the payments of employees contribution to the PF, employees state insurance and pension fund within due date of filing of return of income to be allowed as deduction while computing income of the assessee and amendment to section 43B w.e.f. 1/4/2004 wherein two changes were made in section 43B, firstly, by deleting the 2nd proviso and further amendment in the first proviso and thereby, this amendment provided by Finance Act 2003, put on par the benefit of deduction of tax, duty, cess and fee on the one hand with contribution to various employees welfare fund on the other. 3. In view of the above judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the payment has been made in the F.Y. 2011-12 and in respect of Sl.No.1, the amount was still shown as unpaid in the books of accounts of the assessee and in respect of Sl.No.4, i.e., Rolstrips (India) it was claimed that the same was written back in the FY 2010-11. In view of the above submissions made by the assessee it was contended that the AO cannot make any addition under section 41(1)of the Income tax Act. 4.4 The ld. CIT(A) opined that the entire transactions with regard to the five parties were duly reflected in the books of account and the liabilities were reflected in the balance sheet, which was filed along with return of income. The ld. CIT(A) was of the view that just because there was no response to notices issued under section 133(6) and the parties were not produced personally, the AO could was wrong in concluding that the liabilities ceased to exist. The AO also never proved that there was cessation of liability in respect of these five parties. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that the assessee could not produce details with regard to the creditors from whom the liability was in existence. But however, during the assessment proceedings it was brought to the noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Facts of the case are that the AO had asked for month wise details in respect of stainless steel, item code 304/304L and 316/316L. For carbon steel item A-105 similar details were called. Based on the purchase made during the month of February and March, 2008 and applying the principles of FIFO method of valuation the AO worked out the suppression in stock for the above items of steel. The AO came to above conclusion, as substantial purchases were made in the month of March and also most of the stock purchased were lying at the end of the year. Further, he was of the opinion that the value of the closing stock could not be less than the purchase price. Hence, he made the above addition. 6.2 On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) observed it is a fact that the carbon steel and stainless steel comprises of various sizes and as per the assessee there were about 50 different items lying in the closing stock. The AO had taken only the main item code on a broad category. Hence it was very difficult to correlate each and every item of closing stock with the purchase bill, which according to him, was a basic mistake committed by the AO. Further the assessee was consistently valuing the closing stock....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 245 ITR 384 (Bom.). Thus, he deleted the above addition. Against this the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. We have heard both the parties and considered the material available on record. In this case the assessee consistently valuing closing stock based on the weighted average purchase of last three months for the last several years. Same method was followed for this assessment year . Contrary to this the AO has taken the purchase value only for the month of March 2008. He has disregarded/disturbed the method followed by the assessee consistently which is not proper with the method followed by the AO to value the closing stock giving the distorted picture of assessee's financial position which is to be avoided. Section 145A stipulates that valuation of inventory should be done in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. As such, the AO is precluded from disturbing the method of valuation followed by the assessee consistently. In our opinion CIT(A) has taken an appropriate view in this case and has deleted the addition and the same is upheld. 8. Another aspect is that the assessee has dealt with 50 different items of stainless steel and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td. and since no TDS had been deducted, provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is squarely applicable to the facts of the assessee's case. In support of his contention the AO has relied on various case laws. 10.2 The ld. CIT(A) observed that it was the submission of the assessee that out of total payment of Rs. 49,07,537/- made to M/s. Vishal Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. a sum of Rs. 1,09,600/- was the agency fee paid on which TDS has been promptly deducted. The balance sum of Rs. 48,94,765/- was reimbursement of expenditure incurred by the clearing agents towards primary handling charges, transport charges, octroi, freight, documentation, insurance etc. on behalf of the assessee and hence, the provisions of Chapter XVIIB was not applicable. In the case of the assessee , bills raised by M/s. Vishal Shipping Agency P. Ltd. clearly showed that the reimbursement of expenditure separately based on which the payments were made. According to ld. CIT(A) Section 194C is applicable in which a composite bill is raised which does not differentiate between reimbursement and others. Against this the Revenue is in appeal before us. 10.3 We have heard both the parties and carefully considered the mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. vs. ITO (supra) are reproduced below: "7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below and the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the assessee. We have also considered Board circular dated 8-8-1975, copy of which has been submitted by the learned DR of the Revenue. In the present case, it has been submitted before us by the learned AR that the commission agent has raised separate bills for reimbursement of the expenses. With all these facts, when we consider the Board Circular NO.7 15 dated 8-8-1995, we find that this Board Circular cannot be made applicable to the present case because in the present case, there is no composite bill raised by the commission agent and as per the learned AR of the assessee, separate bill was raised by the commission agent for reimbursement of expenses and the learned DR could not contradict this submission of the learned AR of the assessee. We also find that the Tribunal has also considered the Board Circular No.7 15 dated 8-8-1975 in the case of Dr. Willmar Schwabe India P. Ltd. (supra)and it was held that when the bill for reimbursement of expenses has be....