TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 923
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of law; "(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- for purchase of computer software made by the Assessing Officer as capital expenditure? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of Rs. 27,60,730/-made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained and unverifiable expenses? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 61,23,286/- in respect of unexplained unsecured loan?" 2. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and the documents produced on record, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directed to allow the depreciation as claimed and to delete the addition so made to the extent of Rs. 30,30,137/- and, therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the assessee gets part relief of Rs. 30,30,137/- since the balance disallowance of Rs. 2,79,580/-is held as confirmed. Now so far as the addition of Rs. 2,79,580/- made by the Assessing Officer for purchase of computer software holding the same as capital in nature is concerned, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directed to delete the same by observing in paragraph 4.2 as under; "I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the appellant. I am inclin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade wherever it is applicable. Only on the basis that the appellant has not submitted complete details, 1/6th disallowance on adhoc basis does not survive the legal basis. Further, when appellant submitted complete details now, the A.O. once again has not pointed out any specific defect or irregularity which requires such disallowance. During the A.Y. 2006-07, the appellant is subjected to Fringe Benefit tax also. It is, therefore, all such expenditure involving any personal element is take care of by FBT. The addition so made by A.O. is not justified. The same is directed to be deleted. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 27,60,730/-" 2.3 With respect to the addition of Rs. 22,11,811/- made by the Assessing Officer in respect of unexplaine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfirmation from the party, the onus stand discharged by the appellant. As far as capacity of the creditor, the reason submitted by appellant appears to be plausible that the party is not cooperating since amount is not refunded and looking to no objection from RBI or any proceedings against such party or appellant from DRI or enforcement, such capacity is proved. The A.O. has not made any adverse comment on such basic ingredients while examining the verification of such loan. No information was called for from any authorities. It is, therefore, in the absence of any adverse comment and considering the evidences, additions made by A.O. is held unjustified and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The A.O. is directed to delete such addition. T....